"T. Joseph CARTER" wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 03:59:08PM -0700, Allen Brown wrote: > > It is also a pipeline into your phone for pirates. > > Roughly half of the phones out there are insecure. > > And even tho the system is designed for short distance, > > someone who wants to break in can do so from up to a mile > > away with the appropriate hardware.
I mis-spoke. Only half a mile. http://www.mikeslist.com/2004_08_01_archive.html > Discoverable: no. What do you mean? > Kinda useful, that. Patched firmwares exist for every phone > that has a known exploit. People just don't apply them. =p To me, this has the flavor of Microshaft. The protocol was designed for convenience and not for security. Same as windoze. Every time somebody breaks in the eventually patch the hole. But don't accept that the concept is inherently insecure. Same as Microshaft. But for Bluetooth, the "fixes" I've seen were to leave the phone in a particular mode. And if you used Bluetooth to actually communicate with someone, it wasn't in that mode. It would be interesting to hear your perspective on this. It sounded to me like Bluetooth was only in a secure mode when it was disabled. Wireless protocols are too promiscuous for my taste. -- Allen Brown work: Agilent Technologies non-work: http://www.peak.org/~abrown/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] If voting could change anything it would be illegal. ---Anonymous _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
