It shouldn't take a wireless expert to tell you that...he should try it. I pick up all types of weird stuff all the time in Kismet..and it looks like something..but I know it isn't..the SSID is "A^B^C^B^D^S^G", or in other words, trash.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Paul Schmehl > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:51 AM > To: Lachniet, Mark > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] WiFi question > > --On Thursday, November 18, 2004 09:32:27 AM -0600 Paul > Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:41:44 PM -0500 "Lachniet, Mark" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Could also be RF interference. One of my coworkers tracked down a > >> particularly interesting problem with motion sensor lights. Turns > >> out the motion sensors worked at the 240mhz range, which has > >> resonance at 2.4ghz, or something like that. Hence every time the > >> motion sensor worked, it would spew what the wardriving > (site survey) > >> apps thought was a zillion different access points with widely > >> varying MAC addresses. I would have though it was a > FAKEAP program > >> also. I would assume the same could happen with other > interference. > >> Having a common SSID would seem to indicate this is not > the problem, but just thought I'd mention it. > >> > > Thanks for a particularly interesting and potentially useful bit of > > information, Mark. > > > After forwarding this to our wireless expert, he responded > with this (which he has authorized me to forward to the list.) > > I find it hard to believe that this is possible. 2.4Ghz is > the 9th harmonic. By the time you get to the 4th harmonic of > a signal, even in very very noisy radiators, the strength of > the harmonic component of the signal is extremely minute. > And, given the fact that one of those sensors (which most > likely does *not* truly operate in the 240MHz portion of the > spectrum) will have a very low output (Part 15 device), the > 10th harmonic of that signal will be undetectible as it will > be at or below the level of background noise. > > Finally, if a device managed to get past all of the > improbabilities above, the chances of it *accidentally* > creating a signal that looked like an > 802.11 beacon packet, complete with preamble, header, etc is > so off the charts as to be laughable. > > One other thing... If that device truly was operating at > 240MHz, then the first harmonic would be 480MHz. I'm pretty > sure that frequency lies in the public service bands (ie > fire/police). If not, its very close. Given that and the > fact that the first harmonic would be much stronger than the > 9th harmonic, I'm pretty sure someone in those bands would > have complained loudly to the FCC as they don't take > intereference issues in those bands lightly. > > Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Adjunct Information Security Officer > The University of Texas at Dallas > AVIEN Founding Member > http://www.utdallas.edu > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html