date:20141003

My experience with Core Site has been that their sales people are responsive, 
but their other areas not so much.

What one would expect from a Telco-owned facility.

Equinix, the sales people are less responsive, but at least when I open a 
ticket with them, it gets done pretty quickly in most cases.

Owen

On Oct 3, 2014, at 13:01 , Carlos Alcantar car...@race.com wrote:

 coresite might be a good alternative if they are in the market you are
 trying to get space into.
 
 
 Carlos Alcantar
 Race Communications / Race Team Member
 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
 Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
 
 
 
 
 
 On 10/3/14, 7:33 AM, Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net wrote:
 
 
 Equinix Sales seem impossible to reach.  Should I just give up and go
 through a sales agent or can someone from Equinix sales contact me
 off-list?

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Ricky Beam


On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:16:22 -0400, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
Side question for those smarter than I. How does WPA encryption play  
into this? Would a client associated to a WPA2 AP take a non-encrypted

deauth appearing from the same BSSID?


It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and carries no
authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be provided.

--Ricky

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Keenan Tims

 The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to protect 
 their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive customers.  

I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
spectrum.

My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations.

Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference',
which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere.

K

The Cidr Report

2014-10-03 Thread cidr-report

This report has been generated at Fri Oct  3 21:14:05 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.

Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.

Recent Table History
Date  PrefixesCIDR Agg
26-09-14517584  286968
27-09-14517645  286987
28-09-14517067  287333
29-09-14517697  287127
30-09-14517392  287790
01-10-14518035  287253
02-10-14518063  287399
03-10-14518176  287885


AS Summary
 48431  Number of ASes in routing system
 19548  Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
  3026  Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS28573: NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR
  120100352  Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN


Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as 
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').

 --- 03Oct14 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description

Table 518309   287887   23042244.5%   All ASes

AS28573 3026  133 289395.6%   NET Serviços de Comunicação
   S.A.,BR
AS6389  2895   69 282697.6%   BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
   BellSouth.net Inc.,US
AS17974 2815   80 273597.2%   TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
   Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID
AS22773 2894  161 273394.4%   ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
   Cox Communications Inc.,US
AS4766  2945 1207 173859.0%   KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR
AS6147  1782  166 161690.7%   Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE
AS7303  1769  300 146983.0%   Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR
AS18881 1903  552 135171.0%   Global Village Telecom,BR
AS8402  1335   25 131098.1%   CORBINA-AS OJSC Vimpelcom,RU
AS4755  1912  651 126166.0%   TATACOMM-AS TATA
   Communications formerly VSNL
   is Leading ISP,IN
AS20115 1804  554 125069.3%   CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter
   Communications,US
AS9808  1292   56 123695.7%   CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile
   Communication Co.Ltd.,CN
AS4323  1644  413 123174.9%   TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
   inc.,US
AS7545  2377 1158 121951.3%   TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom
   Limited,AU
AS7552  1263   60 120395.2%   VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel
   Corporation,VN
AS9498  1306  109 119791.7%   BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.,IN
AS10620 2992 1805 118739.7%   Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO
AS18566 2044  866 117857.6%   MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath
   Corporation,US
AS22561 1306  306 100076.6%   AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet
   Holdings, Inc.,US
AS7029  2038 1051  98748.4%   WINDSTREAM - Windstream
   Communications Inc,US
AS7738   999   83  91691.7%   Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR
AS6983  1492  629  86357.8%   ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US
AS4788  1071  244  82777.2%   TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet
   Service Provider,MY
AS38285  956  132  82486.2%   M2TELECOMMUNICATIONS-AU M2
   Telecommunications Group
   Ltd,AU
AS24560 1173  354  81969.8%   AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
   Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
   Services,IN
AS4780  1042  266  77674.5%   SEEDNET Digital United Inc.,TW
AS26615  902  135  76785.0%   Tim Celular S.A.,BR
AS18101  957  197  76079.4%   RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
   Reliance Communications
   Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN
AS8151  1484  737  74750.3%   Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX
AS17908  838   92  74689.0%   TCISL Tata Communications,IN

Total  52256125913966575.9%   Top

BGP Update Report

2014-10-03 Thread cidr-report

BGP Update Report
Interval: 25-Sep-14 -to- 02-Oct-14 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072

TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS9583   583990 11.3% 421.3 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited,IN
 2 - AS9829   198729  3.8% 174.8 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet 
Backbone,IN
 3 - AS23752  196055  3.8%1519.8 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal 
Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP
 4 - AS24193  177229  3.4% 798.3 -- SIFY-IN Sify Limited Service 
Provider India,IN
 5 - AS3816   104096  2.0% 178.2 -- COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES 
S.A. ESP,CO
 6 - AS45816  100073  1.9%3127.3 -- ISHK-AP I-Services Network 
Solution Limited,HK
 7 - AS363398012  1.9% 276.9 -- PROVINCE-OF-BRITISH-COLUMBIA - 
Province of British Columbia,CA
 8 - AS840259612  1.1%  97.6 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC Vimpelcom,RU
 9 - AS45899   58284  1.1% 121.9 -- VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp,VN
10 - AS13682   52871  1.0%5874.6 -- TELEFONICA MOVILES GUATEMALA 
S.A.,GT
11 - AS13188   49032  0.9%  52.2 -- BANKINFORM-AS TOV 
Bank-Inform,UA
12 - AS755243513  0.8%  34.5 -- VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel 
Corporation,VN
13 - AS702942754  0.8%   7.1 -- WINDSTREAM - Windstream 
Communications Inc,US
14 - AS38197   41401  0.8%  67.2 -- SUNHK-DATA-AS-AP Sun Network 
(Hong Kong) Limited,HK
15 - AS165938784  0.8% 153.9 -- ERX-TANET-ASN1 Tiawan Academic 
Network (TANet) Information Center,TW
16 - AS211935869  0.7% 167.6 -- TELENOR-NEXTEL Telenor Norge 
AS,NO
17 - AS28573   34162  0.7%  20.9 -- NET Serviços de Comunicação 
S.A.,BR
18 - AS17552   27921  0.5% 362.6 -- TRUE-AS-AP True Internet 
Co.,Ltd.,TH
19 - AS47331   21546  0.4%   7.3 -- TTNET TTNet A.S.,TR
20 - AS23342   21142  0.4% 528.5 -- UNITEDLAYER - Unitedlayer, 
Inc.,US


TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix)
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS25003   19569  0.4%9784.5 -- INTERNET_BINAT Internet Binat 
Ltd,IL
 2 - AS623186518  0.1%6518.0 -- BIMEH-MA-AS Bimeh Ma,IR
 3 - AS13682   52871  1.0%5874.6 -- TELEFONICA MOVILES GUATEMALA 
S.A.,GT
 4 - AS24673  0.1% 661.0 -- UDEL-DCN - University of 
Delaware,US
 5 - AS323364228  0.1%4228.0 -- IPASS-2 - iPass Incorporated,US
 6 - AS518883429  0.1%3429.0 -- PILOTSYSTEMS-AS Pilot Systems 
consulting SARL,FR
 7 - AS45816  100073  1.9%3127.3 -- ISHK-AP I-Services Network 
Solution Limited,HK
 8 - AS476802781  0.1%2781.0 -- NHCS EOBO Limited,IE
 9 - AS18135   12510  0.2%2502.0 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP
10 - AS6629 9646  0.2%2411.5 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US
11 - AS417622180  0.0%2180.0 -- SEVNET PE Logvinov Vladimir 
Vladimirovich,UA
12 - AS605992003  0.0%2003.0 -- WEBKOMPAS-AS Emelyanov Valentin 
Petrovich,RU
13 - AS309441758  0.0%1758.0 -- DKD-AS Bendra Lietuvos, JAV ir 
Rusijos imone uzdaroji akcine bendrove DKD,LT
14 - AS350933325  0.1%1662.5 -- RO-HTPASSPORT High Tech 
Passport Ltd SUA California San Jose SUCURSALA BUCURESTI ROMANIA,RO
15 - AS273901655  0.0%1655.0 -- ALGAS - Fred Alger  Co Inc.,US
16 - AS621741597  0.0%1597.0 -- INTERPAN-AS INTERPAN LTD.,BG
17 - AS6468 3177  0.1%1588.5 -- EASYLINK-AS6468 - Easylink 
Services Corporation,US
18 - AS31546  0.0%5517.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology,US
19 - AS23752  196055  3.8%1519.8 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal 
Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP
20 - AS572011502  0.0%1502.0 -- EDF-AS Estonian Defence 
Forces,EE


TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes
Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name
 1 - 202.70.64.0/2198144  1.8%   AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal 
Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP
 2 - 202.70.88.0/2196252  1.8%   AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal 
Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP
 3 - 64.29.130.0/2421064  0.4%   AS23342 -- UNITEDLAYER - Unitedlayer, 
Inc.,US
 4 - 192.115.44.0/22   19568  0.4%   AS25003 -- INTERNET_BINAT Internet Binat 
Ltd,IL
 5 - 41.221.20.0/2413637  0.2%   AS36947 -- ALGTEL-AS,DZ
 6 - 42.83.48.0/20 12494  0.2%   AS18135 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP
 7 - 200.34.149.0/24   10487  0.2%   AS8151  -- Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX
 8 - 200.119.160.0/19   9888  0.2%   AS13682 -- TELEFONICA MOVILES GUATEMALA 
S.A.,GT
 9 - 190.143.240.0/20   9872  0.2%   AS13682 -- TELEFONICA MOVILES GUATEMALA 
S.A.,GT
10 - 192.58.232.0/249640  0.2%   AS6629  -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US
11 - 190.143.224.0/20   8805  0.2%   AS13682 -- TELEFONICA MOVILES GUATEMALA 
S.A.,GT
12 -

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread John Schiel



On 10/03/2014 03:23 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:

The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to protect 
their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive customers.

I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
spectrum.


+1



My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations.

Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference',
which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere.


I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be 
acceptable.


--John



K

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:01:21 -0600, John Schiel jsch...@flowtools.net wrote:



On 10/03/2014 03:23 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:

The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to protect 
their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive customers.

I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
spectrum.


+1



My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations.

Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference',
which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere.


I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be 
acceptable.


What constitutes defensive purposes?



--John



K




--
Hugo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations.

Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference',
which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere.

I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be
acceptable.

What constitutes defensive purposes?

Since this is unlicensed spectrum, I don't think there is anything one has
a right to defend :)

/Mike

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Lyle Giese



On 10/03/14 17:34, Michael Van Norman wrote:

My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations.

Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference',
which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere.

I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be
acceptable.

What constitutes defensive purposes?

Since this is unlicensed spectrum, I don't think there is anything one has
a right to defend :)

/Mike


If you charge for access and one person pays and sets up a rogue AP 
offering free WiFi to anyone in range.  I can see a defensive angle there.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

On 10/3/14 3:44 PM, Lyle Giese l...@lcrcomputer.net wrote:


On 10/03/14 17:34, Michael Van Norman wrote:
 My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue
AP
 detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
 administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
 interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC
regulations.

 Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this
'interference',
 which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally
interfere.
 I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be
 acceptable.
 What constitutes defensive purposes?
 Since this is unlicensed spectrum, I don't think there is anything one
has
 a right to defend :)

 /Mike


If you charge for access and one person pays and sets up a rogue AP
offering free WiFi to anyone in range.  I can see a defensive angle there.

Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

In that case turn off the offenders access.  No FCC violation doing that.
In any case, that was not what was happening here.

/Mike

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Wayne E Bouchard

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
  The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to 
  protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive 
  customers.  
 
 I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
 outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
 physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
 spectrum.
 

I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
on premesis...

Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?

-Wayne

---
Wayne Bouchard
w...@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread joel jaeggli

On 10/3/14 6:01 PM, John Schiel wrote:
 
 On 10/03/2014 03:23 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
 The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to
 protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive
 customers.
 I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
 outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
 physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
 spectrum.
 
 +1
 

 My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
 detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
 administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
 interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations.

 Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference',
 which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere.
 
 I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be
 acceptable.

if you have a device licensed under fcc part 15 it may not cause harmful
interference to other users of the spectrum.

 --John
 

 K
 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

On 10/3/14 7:12 PM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
The question here is what is authorized and what is not. Was this to
protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive
customers.

I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
spectrum.

I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
on premesis...

Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf
...
The FCC rules are designed to control the marketing of low-power
transmitters and,
to a lesser extent, their use. If the operation of a non-compliant
transmitter causes
interference to authorized radio communications, the user should stop
operating the
transmitter or correct the problem causing the interference. However,
the person (or
company) that sold this non-compliant transmitter to the user has
violated the FCC
marketing rules in Part 2 as well as federal law. The act of selling or
leasing, offering
to sell or lease, or importing a low-power transmitter that has not gone
through the
appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure is a violation of the
Commission's
rules and federal law.
...

-Wayne

---
Wayne Bouchard
w...@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: large BCP38 compliance testing

- Original Message -
 From: Alain Hebert aheb...@pubnix.net

 PS: About that uRPF Convo, we could dump all that knowledges into
 lets say... some comprehensive wiki page maybe =D That way when the
 topic arise we could just link to it.

Gee, Alain...

where would people find a wiki like that?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:

 On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
 The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to 
 protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive 
 customers.  
 
 I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
 outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
 physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
 spectrum.
 
 
 I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
 a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
 active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
 because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
 don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
 could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
 or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
 interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
 on premesis...
 
 Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?

You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective, but it 
is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as amended.

The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally:

You are _NOT_ allowed to intentionally cause harmful interference with a signal 
for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency, you are allowed to 
conduct your normal operations without undue concern for other users of the 
same spectrum, but you are not allowed to deliberately interfere with any 
secondary user just for the sake of interfering with them.

The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the hotel in 
question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations.

As someone else said, owning the property does not constitute ownership of the 
airwaves within the boundaries of the property, at least in the US (and I 
suspect in most if not all ITU countries).

Owen

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

- Original Message -
 From: Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com

 It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and carries no
 authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be
 provided.

What's the code for E_GREEDY?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Donald Eastlake

IANAL but no, I think it most certainly does not, at least in the USA,
depend on the terms of your *lease* agreement. In particular, I refer
you to
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;?id=6518608517
where in the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) specifically
voided terms restricting Wi-Fi in space leased from the Massachusetts
Port Authority at Boston airport as in violation of the OTARD (Over
The Air Reception Device) FCC rules. This probably doesn't apply if
you are a mere licensee but if you are a leaseholder, including being
a tenant-in-possession, as you are if you rent a hotel room, I think
they do apply.

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com


On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:
 On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
  The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to 
  protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive 
  customers.

 I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
 outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
 physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
 spectrum.


 I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
 a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
 active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
 because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
 don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
 could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
 or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
 interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
 on premesis...

 Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?

 -Wayne

 ---
 Wayne Bouchard
 w...@typo.org
 Network Dude
 http://www.typo.org/~web/

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

- Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com

 On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:

  Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?
 
 You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective,
 but it is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as
 amended.
 
 The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally:
 
 You are _NOT_ allowed to intentionally cause harmful interference with
 a signal for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency,
 you are allowed to conduct your normal operations without undue
 concern for other users of the same spectrum, but you are not allowed
 to deliberately interfere with any secondary user just for the sake of
 interfering with them.
 
 The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the
 hotel in question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations.

Well, this will certainly have interesting implications on providing 
wireless service on business premises, won't it?

Are Cisco et alia accessories-before?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g. California
Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services
or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user
of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking access to
somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.

/Mike


On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:

So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various
vendors are illegal if used in the US?

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com

 It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and carries no
 authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be
 provided.

 What's the code for E_GREEDY?

 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think
RFC 2100
 Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land
Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727
647 1274



-- 
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On 10/3/2014 15:16, Nick Olsen wrote:

Not sure the specific implementation. But I've heard of Rouge AP detection
done in two ways.



Forgive me, I have been out of active large scale network administration 
for a number of years and have really lost touch.


What it is about red-colored APs that is offensive?  I have never seen one.


--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu wrote:


IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g. California
Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services
or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user
of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking access to
somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.


My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the 
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs 
are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in 
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.




/Mike




--
Hugo


On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:


So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various
vendors are illegal if used in the US?

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

- Original Message -

From: Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com



It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and carries no
authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be
provided.


What's the code for E_GREEDY?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727
647 1274




--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0





signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

Except that this is the difference between what happens at a Marriott and what 
would happen at a business that was running rogue AP detection. In the business 
the portable AP would be trying to look like the network that the company 
operated so as to siphon off legitimate users. In a hotel the portable AP would 
be trying to create a different, separate network. And so your thesis does not 
hold. 

I think this is the distinction we need. Because it's clear that the business 
thing should be able to happen and the hotel thing should

On October 3, 2014 10:25:22 PM EDT, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:

IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g.
California
Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer
services
or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized
user
of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking access
to
somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.

My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the 
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs 
are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in 
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.


/Mike



--
Hugo

On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:

So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various
vendors are illegal if used in the US?

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com

 It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and
carries no
 authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be
 provided.

 What's the code for E_GREEDY?

 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think
RFC 2100
 Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000
Land
Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1
727
647 1274



--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0



-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:



On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:


On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:

The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to protect 
their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive customers.


I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
spectrum.



I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
on premesis...

Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?


You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective, but it 
is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as amended.

The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally:

You are _NOT_ allowed to intentionally cause harmful interference with a signal 
for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency, you are allowed to 
conduct your normal operations without undue concern for other users of the 
same spectrum, but you are not allowed to deliberately interfere with any 
secondary user just for the sake of interfering with them.

The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the hotel in 
question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations.

As someone else said, owning the property does not constitute ownership of the 
airwaves within the boundaries of the property, at least in the US (and I 
suspect in most if not all ITU countries).

Owen



Serious question:  do the FCC regulations on RF spectrum interference 
extend beyond layer 1?  I would assume that blasting a bunch of RF noise 
would be pretty obviously out of bounds, but my understanding is that 
the mechanisms described for rogue AP squashing operate at L2.  The 
*effect* is to render the wireless medium pretty much useless for its 
intended purpose, but that's accomplished by the use (abuse?) of higher 
layer control mechanisms.


I'm not condoning this, but do the FCC regulations RF interference 
apply?  Do they have authority above L1 in this case?


--
Hugo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:

IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g.
California
Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services
or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user
of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking access to
somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.

My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs
are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.

They can say anything they want, it does not make it legal.

There's no such thing as a rogue AP in this context.  I can run an
access point almost anywhere I want (there are limits established by the
FCC in some areas) and it does not matter who owns the land underneath.
They have no authority to decide whether or not my access point is
authorized.  They can certainly refuse to connect me to their wired
network; and they can disconnect me if they decide I am making
inappropriate use of their network -- but they have no legal authority to
interfere with my wireless transmissions on my own network (be it my
personal hotspot, WiFi router, etc.).  FWIW, the same is true in almost
all corporate environments as well.

/Mike

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

One of the reasons I pointed to the California law is that it covers above
L1 even if FCC authority does not.  The state law also provides for
criminal penalties.  I do not know if other states have similar laws.

/Mike

On 10/3/14 7:42 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:


On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:

 On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
 The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this
to protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive
customers.

 I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
 outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless
of
 physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
 spectrum.


 I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
 a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
 active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
 because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
 don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
 could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
 or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
 interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
 on premesis...

 Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?

You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective,
but it is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as
amended.

The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally:

You are _NOT_ allowed to intentionally cause harmful interference with a
signal for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency, you
are allowed to conduct your normal operations without undue concern for
other users of the same spectrum, but you are not allowed to
deliberately interfere with any secondary user just for the sake of
interfering with them.

The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the
hotel in question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations.

As someone else said, owning the property does not constitute ownership
of the airwaves within the boundaries of the property, at least in the
US (and I suspect in most if not all ITU countries).

Owen


Serious question:  do the FCC regulations on RF spectrum interference
extend beyond layer 1?  I would assume that blasting a bunch of RF noise
would be pretty obviously out of bounds, but my understanding is that
the mechanisms described for rogue AP squashing operate at L2.  The
*effect* is to render the wireless medium pretty much useless for its
intended purpose, but that's accomplished by the use (abuse?) of higher
layer control mechanisms.

I'm not condoning this, but do the FCC regulations RF interference
apply?  Do they have authority above L1 in this case?

-- 
Hugo

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


Looks like you cut off, but:

Except that this is the difference between what happens at a Marriott 
and what would happen at a business that was running rogue AP 
detection. In the business the portable AP would be trying to look like 
the network that the company operated so as to siphon off legitimate 
users. In a hotel the portable AP would be trying to create a 
different, separate network. And so your thesis does not hold.


But it's not a completely discrete network.  It is a subset of the 
existing network in the most common example of e.g. a WLAN + NAT device 
providing access to additional clients, or at least an adjacent network 
attached to the existing one.  Okay: theoretically a guest could spin up 
a hotspot and not attach it to the hotel network at all, but I'm 
assuming that's a pretty tiny edge case.


As the administration of the hotel/org network, I'm within bounds to say 
you're not allowed attach unauthorized devices to the network or extend 
the network and that should be fair in my network, my rules, no?  And 
so I can take action against a breach of those terms.


The hotspot is a separate network, but I don't have to allow it to 
connect to my network.  I guess that points towards killing the wired 
port as a better method, as doing deauth on the hotspot(s) WLAN(s) would 
mean that you are participating in the separate network(s) and causing 
harm there rather than at the attachment point.


But what then of the duplicate SSID of the nefarious user at the 
business?  What recourse does the business have while still staying in 
bounds?


--
Hugo

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 22:27:06 -0400, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:


Except that this is the difference between what happens at a Marriott and what 
would happen at a business that was running rogue AP detection. In the business 
the portable AP would be trying to look like the network that the company 
operated so as to siphon off legitimate users. In a hotel the portable AP would 
be trying to create a different, separate network. And so your thesis does not 
hold.

I think this is the distinction we need. Because it's clear that the business 
thing should be able to happen and the hotel thing should

On October 3, 2014 10:25:22 PM EDT, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:


IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g.

California

Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer

services

or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized

user

of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking access

to

somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.


My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs
are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.



/Mike




--
Hugo


On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:


So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various
vendors are illegal if used in the US?

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

- Original Message -

From: Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com



It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and

carries no

authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be
provided.


What's the code for E_GREEDY?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000

Land

Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1

727

647 1274




--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0





--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


--
Hugo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Fri 2014-Oct-03 19:45:57 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu wrote:


On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:


On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:


IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g.
California
Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services
or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user
of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking access to
somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.


My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs
are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.


They can say anything they want, it does not make it legal.

There's no such thing as a rogue AP in this context.  I can run an
access point almost anywhere I want (there are limits established by the
FCC in some areas) and it does not matter who owns the land underneath.
They have no authority to decide whether or not my access point is
authorized.  They can certainly refuse to connect me to their wired
network; and they can disconnect me if they decide I am making
inappropriate use of their network -- but they have no legal authority to
interfere with my wireless transmissions on my own network (be it my
personal hotspot, WiFi router, etc.).  FWIW, the same is true in almost
all corporate environments as well.


Thanks; I think that's the distinction I was looking for here.  By 
spoofing deauth, the org is actively/knowingly participating on *my 
network* and causing harm to it without necessarily having proof that 
*my network* is in any way attached to *their network*.  The assumption 
in the hotel case is likely that the WLANs of the rogue APs they're 
targeting are attached to their wired network and are attempts to extend 
that wireless network without authorization (and that's probably 
generally a pretty safe assumption), but that doesn't forgive causing 
harm to that WLAN.  There's no reason they can't cut off the wired port 
of the AP if it is connected to the org's network as that's their 
attachment point and their call, but spoofed deauth stuff does seem to 
be out of bounds.


I'm not clear on whether it runs afoul of FCC regs as it's not RF 
interference directly but rather an (ab)use of higher layer control 
mechanisms operating on that spectrum, but it probably does run afoul of 
most thou shalt not harm other networks legislation like the 
California example.




/Mike




--
Hugo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

Wifi offered by a carrier citywide, or free wifi signals from a nearby
hotel / park / coffee shop..

On 04-Oct-2014 8:29 am, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:

 attached to the existing one.
 Okay: theoretically a guest could
 spin up a hotspot and not attach
 it to the hotel network at all, but
 I'm assuming that's a pretty tiny
 edge case.

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 20:31:56 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:

 What it is about red-colored APs that is offensive?  I have never seen one.

It's a color code that indicates it's an RFC3514-compliant device.


pgpXeFC2JMDVl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Philip Dorr

http://www.arrl.org/part-15-radio-frequency-devices#Definitions
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt47.1.15

(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that
endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety
services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a
radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter.
On Oct 3, 2014 6:17 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:

 On 10/3/14 6:01 PM, John Schiel wrote:
 
  On 10/03/2014 03:23 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
  The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to
  protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive
  customers.
  I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
  outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
  physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
  spectrum.
 
  +1
 
 
  My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
  detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
  administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
  interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations.
 
  Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference',
  which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere.
 
  I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be
  acceptable.

 if you have a device licensed under fcc part 15 it may not cause harmful
 interference to other users of the spectrum.

  --John
 
 
  K

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Sat 2014-Oct-04 08:37:32 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com 
wrote:


Wifi offered by a carrier citywide, or free wifi signals from a nearby
hotel / park / coffee shop..


Perfect example (thanks) of why cutting off network attachment points 
would be fair game while effectively attacking other WLANs has 
collateral damage.




On 04-Oct-2014 8:29 am, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:


attached to the existing one.
Okay: theoretically a guest could
spin up a hotspot and not attach
it to the hotel network at all, but
I'm assuming that's a pretty tiny
edge case.



--
Hugo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

Hugo, I still don't think that you have quite made it to the distinction that 
we are looking for here.

In the case of the hotel, we are talking about an access point that connects 
via 4G to a cellular carrier. An access point that attempts to create its own 
network for the subscribers devices. A network disjoint from the network 
provided by the hotel or its contractor.

This is a different case from the circumstance in a business office where 
equipment is deployed to prevent someone from walking in with an access point 
/which pretends to be part of the network which the office runs./

In the latter case, the security hardware is justified in deassociating people 
from the rogue access point, /because it is pretending to be part of a network 
it is not authorized to be part of/.

In the Marriott case, that is not the circumstance. The networks which the 
deauth probes are being aimed at are networks which are advertising themselves 
as being /separate from the network operated by the hotel/, and this is the 
distinction that makes Marriott's behavior is unacceptable. 

(In my opinion; I am NOT a lawyer. If following my advice breaks something, you 
get to keep both pieces.)

On October 3, 2014 11:04:08 PM EDT, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 19:45:57 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:

On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:

IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g.
California
Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer
services
or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized
user
of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking
access to
somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.

My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue
APs
are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.

They can say anything they want, it does not make it legal.

There's no such thing as a rogue AP in this context.  I can run an
access point almost anywhere I want (there are limits established by
the
FCC in some areas) and it does not matter who owns the land
underneath.
They have no authority to decide whether or not my access point is
authorized.  They can certainly refuse to connect me to their wired
network; and they can disconnect me if they decide I am making
inappropriate use of their network -- but they have no legal authority
to
interfere with my wireless transmissions on my own network (be it my
personal hotspot, WiFi router, etc.).  FWIW, the same is true in
almost
all corporate environments as well.

Thanks; I think that's the distinction I was looking for here.  By 
spoofing deauth, the org is actively/knowingly participating on *my 
network* and causing harm to it without necessarily having proof that 
*my network* is in any way attached to *their network*.  The assumption

in the hotel case is likely that the WLANs of the rogue APs they're 
targeting are attached to their wired network and are attempts to
extend 
that wireless network without authorization (and that's probably 
generally a pretty safe assumption), but that doesn't forgive causing 
harm to that WLAN.  There's no reason they can't cut off the wired port

of the AP if it is connected to the org's network as that's their 
attachment point and their call, but spoofed deauth stuff does seem to 
be out of bounds.

I'm not clear on whether it runs afoul of FCC regs as it's not RF 
interference directly but rather an (ab)use of higher layer control 
mechanisms operating on that spectrum, but it probably does run afoul
of 
most thou shalt not harm other networks legislation like the 
California example.


/Mike



-- 
Hugo

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


Jay,

Thanks; I think I was stretching this a bit far beyond just the Marriott 
example.  Killing hotspots of completely discrete networks because $$$ 
is heinous.  I had extended this to e.g.:


1.  Hotel charges for either wired or wireless access per device and has 
network policies to that effect.
2.  Guest pays for a single device and hooks up an AP or AP/NAT combo to 
the wired port.

3.  User piggybacks multiple devices on that device's WLAN.

...to try to flesh out the scenarios.  In the attempt I went a bit far 
off the reservation.  Apologies for the noise.


--
Hugo

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 23:32:39 -0400, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:


Hugo, I still don't think that you have quite made it to the distinction that 
we are looking for here.

In the case of the hotel, we are talking about an access point that connects 
via 4G to a cellular carrier. An access point that attempts to create its own 
network for the subscribers devices. A network disjoint from the network 
provided by the hotel or its contractor.

This is a different case from the circumstance in a business office where 
equipment is deployed to prevent someone from walking in with an access point 
/which pretends to be part of the network which the office runs./

In the latter case, the security hardware is justified in deassociating people 
from the rogue access point, /because it is pretending to be part of a network 
it is not authorized to be part of/.

In the Marriott case, that is not the circumstance. The networks which the 
deauth probes are being aimed at are networks which are advertising themselves 
as being /separate from the network operated by the hotel/, and this is the 
distinction that makes Marriott's behavior is unacceptable.

(In my opinion; I am NOT a lawyer. If following my advice breaks something, you 
get to keep both pieces.)

On October 3, 2014 11:04:08 PM EDT, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 19:45:57 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:


On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:


On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:


IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g.
California
Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer

services

or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized

user

of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking

access to

somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.


My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue

APs

are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.


They can say anything they want, it does not make it legal.

There's no such thing as a rogue AP in this context.  I can run an
access point almost anywhere I want (there are limits established by

the

FCC in some areas) and it does not matter who owns the land

underneath.

They have no authority to decide whether or not my access point is
authorized.  They can certainly refuse to connect me to their wired
network; and they can disconnect me if they decide I am making
inappropriate use of their network -- but they have no legal authority

to

interfere with my wireless transmissions on my own network (be it my
personal hotspot, WiFi router, etc.).  FWIW, the same is true in

almost

all corporate environments as well.


Thanks; I think that's the distinction I was looking for here.  By
spoofing deauth, the org is actively/knowingly participating on *my
network* and causing harm to it without necessarily having proof that
*my network* is in any way attached to *their network*.  The assumption

in the hotel case is likely that the WLANs of the rogue APs they're
targeting are attached to their wired network and are attempts to
extend
that wireless network without authorization (and that's probably
generally a pretty safe assumption), but that doesn't forgive causing
harm to that WLAN.  There's no reason they can't cut off the wired port

of the AP if it is connected to the org's network as that's their
attachment point and their call, but spoofed deauth stuff does seem to
be out of bounds.

I'm not clear on whether it runs afoul of FCC regs as it's not RF
interference directly but rather an (ab)use of higher layer control
mechanisms operating on that spectrum, but it probably does run afoul
of
most thou shalt not harm other networks legislation like the
California example.



/Mike




--
Hugo


--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


--
Hugo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

No problem, Hugo. 

In fact, if you paid for Wired service and plugged your own router in, you 
would still be creating your own network, and not pretending to be the hotel's 
network. At the RF layer. 

So it would not be legal for them to zap that either. Doing so might /violate 
your agreement for the wired internet/, but that's a problem up in layer 10...

(People, money, lawyers)

On October 3, 2014 11:45:48 PM EDT, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
Jay,

Thanks; I think I was stretching this a bit far beyond just the
Marriott 
example.  Killing hotspots of completely discrete networks because
$$$ 
is heinous.  I had extended this to e.g.:

1.  Hotel charges for either wired or wireless access per device and
has 
network policies to that effect.
2.  Guest pays for a single device and hooks up an AP or AP/NAT combo
to 
the wired port.
3.  User piggybacks multiple devices on that device's WLAN.

...to try to flesh out the scenarios.  In the attempt I went a bit far 
off the reservation.  Apologies for the noise.

--
Hugo

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 23:32:39 -0400, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
wrote:

Hugo, I still don't think that you have quite made it to the
distinction that we are looking for here.

In the case of the hotel, we are talking about an access point that
connects via 4G to a cellular carrier. An access point that attempts to
create its own network for the subscribers devices. A network disjoint
from the network provided by the hotel or its contractor.

This is a different case from the circumstance in a business office
where equipment is deployed to prevent someone from walking in with an
access point /which pretends to be part of the network which the office
runs./

In the latter case, the security hardware is justified in
deassociating people from the rogue access point, /because it is
pretending to be part of a network it is not authorized to be part of/.

In the Marriott case, that is not the circumstance. The networks which
the deauth probes are being aimed at are networks which are advertising
themselves as being /separate from the network operated by the hotel/,
and this is the distinction that makes Marriott's behavior is
unacceptable.

(In my opinion; I am NOT a lawyer. If following my advice breaks
something, you get to keep both pieces.)

On October 3, 2014 11:04:08 PM EDT, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com
wrote:
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 19:45:57 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:

On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman
m...@ucla.edu
wrote:

IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g.
California
Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly
and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer
services
or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an
authorized
user
of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking
access to
somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.

My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue
APs
are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.

They can say anything they want, it does not make it legal.

There's no such thing as a rogue AP in this context.  I can run an
access point almost anywhere I want (there are limits established by
the
FCC in some areas) and it does not matter who owns the land
underneath.
They have no authority to decide whether or not my access point is
authorized.  They can certainly refuse to connect me to their
wired
network; and they can disconnect me if they decide I am making
inappropriate use of their network -- but they have no legal
authority
to
interfere with my wireless transmissions on my own network (be it my
personal hotspot, WiFi router, etc.).  FWIW, the same is true in
almost
all corporate environments as well.

Thanks; I think that's the distinction I was looking for here.  By
spoofing deauth, the org is actively/knowingly participating on *my
network* and causing harm to it without necessarily having proof that
*my network* is in any way attached to *their network*.  The
assumption

in the hotel case is likely that the WLANs of the rogue APs they're
targeting are attached to their wired network and are attempts to
extend
that wireless network without authorization (and that's probably
generally a pretty safe assumption), but that doesn't forgive causing
harm to that WLAN.  There's no reason they can't cut off the wired
port

of the AP if it is connected to the org's network as that's their
attachment point and their call, but spoofed deauth stuff does seem
to
be out of bounds.

I'm not clear on whether it runs afoul of FCC regs as it's not RF
interference directly but rather an (ab)use of higher layer control
mechanisms operating on that spectrum, but it probably does run afoul
of
most thou shalt not

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Daniel Seagraves


On Oct 3, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:

 Jay,
 
 Killing hotspots of completely discrete networks because $$$ is heinous.  I 
 had extended this to e.g.:
 

It’s not just Marriott doing this; A friend of mine went to a convention near 
DC and found the venue was doing something like this. I don’t know if the 
method was the same, but he reported that any time he connected to his phone he 
would be disconnected “nearly immediately. He mentioned this to a con staffer 
and was told you had to rent internet access from the venue, it cost several 
hundred dollars per day. Same for electricity, about which he was told “If you 
have to ask how much it costs, you cannot afford it.”

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Jay Hennigan

On 10/3/14, 7:57 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:

 But it's not a completely discrete network.  It is a subset of the
 existing network in the most common example of e.g. a WLAN + NAT device
 providing access to additional clients, or at least an adjacent network
 attached to the existing one.  Okay: theoretically a guest could spin up
 a hotspot and not attach it to the hotel network at all, but I'm
 assuming that's a pretty tiny edge case.

The appropriate remedy would be to deny access to the WLAN+NAT device
from your host network, not to interfere with its communication to its
clients. Or ask the guest operating it to leave the premises.

A guest spinning up a hotspot not connected to the hotel network is far
from an edge case. Cellular 3G/4G/LTE-to-hotspot devices are quite
common and widely deployed. Tethering one's laptop to one's smartphone
is also very common. Jamming such communications does nothing to protect
one's own wi-fi, only to protect one's profits.

 As the administration of the hotel/org network, I'm within bounds to say
 you're not allowed attach unauthorized devices to the network or extend
 the network and that should be fair in my network, my rules, no?  And
 so I can take action against a breach of those terms.

As long as it's a legal action, such as denying the MAC of the
unauthorized device to your network, absolutely. In this case it's
someone else's network, hence not your rules.

 The hotspot is a separate network, but I don't have to allow it to
 connect to my network.  I guess that points towards killing the wired
 port as a better method, as doing deauth on the hotspot(s) WLAN(s) would
 mean that you are participating in the separate network(s) and causing
 harm there rather than at the attachment point.

Precisely.

 But what then of the duplicate SSID of the nefarious user at the
 business?  What recourse does the business have while still staying in
 bounds?

As long as the nefarious user isn't connecting to the business's
network, none. There are likely hundreds of thousands if not millions of
networks whose SSID is 'Linksys', duplicated willy-nilly worldwide.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Majdi S. Abbas

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:57:29PM -0500, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
 It?s not just Marriott doing this; A friend of mine went to a convention 
 near DC and found the venue was doing something like this. I don?t know if 
 the method was the same, but he reported that any time he connected to his 
 phone he would be disconnected ?nearly immediately. He mentioned this to a 
 con staffer and was told you had to rent internet access from the venue, it 
 cost several hundred dollars per day. Same for electricity, about which he 

I've seen this in a few places, but if anyone encounters similar
behavior, I suggest the following:

- Document the incident.
- Identify the make and model of the access point, or
  controller, and be sure to pass along this information to 
  the FCC's OET: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/

Vendors really need to start losing their US device certification 
for devices that include advertised features that violate US law.  It
would put a stop to this sort of thing pretty quickly.

--msa

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Jay Hennigan

On 10/3/14, 8:04 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:

 I'm not clear on whether it runs afoul of FCC regs as it's not RF
 interference directly but rather an (ab)use of higher layer control
 mechanisms operating on that spectrum, but it probably does run afoul of
 most thou shalt not harm other networks legislation like the
 California example.

You can't get to layer 2 or layer 3 without layer 1.  The abuse of
higher layer control protocols requires an RF transmitter within the
radio spectrum, hence it is interference.  It is a much more selectively
targeted type of interference than broadband noise, but it's very
obviously interference over radio frequencies by any definition.


-- 
--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

The hotel is being fined for blocking/jamming users setting up wifi via mobile 
technologies and such, not using the hotel's network. Hard for me to imagine 
how the hotel gets to insert itself into any applicable AUP in that scenario.  

Owen




 On Oct 3, 2014, at 19:25, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
 
 On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu wrote:
 
 IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g. California
 Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
 without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services
 or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user
 of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking access to
 somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.
 
 My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the blocking 
 tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs are not 
 authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in contravention of 
 the AUP of the hotel/org network.
 
 
 /Mike
 
 
 
 --
 Hugo
 
 On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various
 vendors are illegal if used in the US?
 
 On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com
 
 It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and carries no
 authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be
 provided.
 
 What's the code for E_GREEDY?
 
 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
 j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think
 RFC 2100
 Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land
 Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727
 647 1274
 
 
 
 --
 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

If the signal that is causing the harmful interference is a radio transmission, 
then the FCC doesn't differentiate between noise and intelligent harmful 
interference. If you interfere elsewhere on the wire or without transmitting, 
you might avoid the part 15 rules about causing harmful interference. If you 
transmit a signal over the air, then the FCC has authority and requires that 
you not cause harmful interference. 

Owen




 On Oct 3, 2014, at 19:42, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
 
 On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
 
 
 On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:
 
 On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
 The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this to 
 protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive 
 customers.
 
 I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
 outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
 physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
 spectrum.
 
 I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
 a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
 active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
 because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
 don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
 could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
 or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
 interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
 on premesis...
 
 Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?
 
 You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective, but 
 it is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as amended.
 
 The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally:
 
 You are _NOT_ allowed to intentionally cause harmful interference with a 
 signal for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency, you are 
 allowed to conduct your normal operations without undue concern for other 
 users of the same spectrum, but you are not allowed to deliberately 
 interfere with any secondary user just for the sake of interfering with them.
 
 The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the hotel 
 in question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations.
 
 As someone else said, owning the property does not constitute ownership of 
 the airwaves within the boundaries of the property, at least in the US (and 
 I suspect in most if not all ITU countries).
 
 Owen
 
 Serious question:  do the FCC regulations on RF spectrum interference extend 
 beyond layer 1?  I would assume that blasting a bunch of RF noise would be 
 pretty obviously out of bounds, but my understanding is that the mechanisms 
 described for rogue AP squashing operate at L2.  The *effect* is to render 
 the wireless medium pretty much useless for its intended purpose, but that's 
 accomplished by the use (abuse?) of higher layer control mechanisms.
 
 I'm not condoning this, but do the FCC regulations RF interference apply?  Do 
 they have authority above L1 in this case?
 
 -- 
 Hugo

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

If there were a duplicate SSID, the. The nefarious user is the one causing 
illegal harmful interference. 

However, as I understand the case in question, Marriott was blocking stand-up 
mobile hotspots not attached to their wired network or bridged/routed through 
their wifi. 

As you pointed out, even if this were unauthorized extension of the Marriott 
network, Marriott's legitimate response would have been disconnecting the 
extension from their network, not causing harmful interference to the other 
network. 

Owen




 On Oct 3, 2014, at 19:57, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
 
 Looks like you cut off, but:
 
 Except that this is the difference between what happens at a Marriott and 
 what would happen at a business that was running rogue AP detection. In the 
 business the portable AP would be trying to look like the network that the 
 company operated so as to siphon off legitimate users. In a hotel the 
 portable AP would be trying to create a different, separate network. And so 
 your thesis does not hold.
 
 But it's not a completely discrete network.  It is a subset of the existing 
 network in the most common example of e.g. a WLAN + NAT device providing 
 access to additional clients, or at least an adjacent network attached to the 
 existing one.  Okay: theoretically a guest could spin up a hotspot and not 
 attach it to the hotel network at all, but I'm assuming that's a pretty tiny 
 edge case.
 
 As the administration of the hotel/org network, I'm within bounds to say 
 you're not allowed attach unauthorized devices to the network or extend the 
 network and that should be fair in my network, my rules, no?  And so I can 
 take action against a breach of those terms.
 
 The hotspot is a separate network, but I don't have to allow it to connect to 
 my network.  I guess that points towards killing the wired port as a better 
 method, as doing deauth on the hotspot(s) WLAN(s) would mean that you are 
 participating in the separate network(s) and causing harm there rather than 
 at the attachment point.
 
 But what then of the duplicate SSID of the nefarious user at the business?  
 What recourse does the business have while still staying in bounds?
 
 --
 Hugo
 
 On Fri 2014-Oct-03 22:27:06 -0400, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 
 Except that this is the difference between what happens at a Marriott and 
 what would happen at a business that was running rogue AP detection. In the 
 business the portable AP would be trying to look like the network that the 
 company operated so as to siphon off legitimate users. In a hotel the 
 portable AP would be trying to create a different, separate network. And so 
 your thesis does not hold.
 
 I think this is the distinction we need. Because it's clear that the 
 business thing should be able to happen and the hotel thing should
 
 On October 3, 2014 10:25:22 PM EDT, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
 On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
 wrote:
 
 IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g.
 California
 Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
 without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer
 services
 or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized
 user
 of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking access
 to
 somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.
 
 My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the
 blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs
 are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in
 contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.
 
 
 /Mike
 
 --
 Hugo
 
 On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various
 vendors are illegal if used in the US?
 
 On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com
 
 It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and
 carries no
 authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be
 provided.
 
 What's the code for E_GREEDY?
 
 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
 j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think
 RFC 2100
 Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000
 Land
 Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1
 727
 647 1274
 
 
 
 --
 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
 
 -- 
 Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
 
 -- 
 Hugo

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-03 Thread Jay Hennigan

On 10/3/14, 8:45 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
 Jay,
 
 Thanks; I think I was stretching this a bit far beyond just the Marriott
 example.  Killing hotspots of completely discrete networks because $$$
 is heinous.  I had extended this to e.g.:
 
 1.  Hotel charges for either wired or wireless access per device and has
 network policies to that effect.

OK.

 2.  Guest pays for a single device and hooks up an AP or AP/NAT combo to
 the wired port.

Guest has only a single device connected to hotel's network, which he is
paying for. OK.

 3.  User piggybacks multiple devices on that device's WLAN.

His network, his rules. Hotel has no right to interfere. He only has one
device connected to them. Same scenario as that of a residential ISP
where a user pays for one dynamic IP address, installs a NAT box and
connects several devices to it.

If hotel has an AUP that specifically prohibits this, then they are
within their rights to disconnect the user from their network, but not
to interfere with his network. If they do so he now has his own little
private WLAN going nowhere but it works just fine.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On 10/3/2014 22:09, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 20:31:56 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:


What it is about red-colored APs that is offensive?  I have never seen one.


It's a color code that indicates it's an RFC3514-compliant device.


%^)

--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On 10/3/2014 22:26, Hugo Slabbert wrote:

On Sat 2014-Oct-04 08:37:32 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.li...@gmail.com wrote:


Wifi offered by a carrier citywide, or free wifi signals from a nearby
hotel / park / coffee shop..


Perfect example (thanks) of why cutting off network attachment points
would be fair game while effectively attacking other WLANs has
collateral damage.


Most crimes not committed by government entities have to go through an 
indictment-trial-conviction sequence before punisihment is administered.


Except in Chicago.

--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: Marriott wifi blocking