You have to do both preferrably. You kill the wired port to get them off your
LAN, but if they are also on one of your SSIDs or run an unsecured one the AP
can bug light your clients. Given that there is an unauthorized intrusion on
the wired side, I don't want him talking to my clients at
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:03:48 -, Naslund, Steve said:
the AP can bug light your clients.
Only if your clients are configured to allow it.
pgpF_JHgfuTWH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Now that BYOD is so popular, you don't control all of your client
configurations so you better find a way to try to secure them as much as
possible from the network side. Defense in depth is what it is.
It a lot easy to manage one wireless IDP/IDS than a thousand clients that get
replaced and
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the
As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby
bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority to do that?
They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby bottles, etc.
on BART trains.
You can carry a radio. You can operate a radio. You
On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had an FCC
On 10/9/2014 02:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water,
baby bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority
to do that?
They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby
bottles, etc. on BART trains.
You can carry
On 10/9/2014 02:16, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:16 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On
On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air
TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?
The translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for
that
On Oct 9, 2014, at 03:57, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air
TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?
On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an area
where there's a lot of ambiguity. We don't even know for sure that
what Marriott
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com wrote:
(What's your position on a case where someone puts up, say, a
continuous carrier point-to-point system on the same channel as an
existing WiFi system that is now rendered useless by the p-to-p system
that won't
So is the main factor here in all the FCC verbage become that the WiFi
spectrum is NOT a licensed
band and therefore does not fall under the interference regulations
unless they are interfering with
a licensed band?
I think the first sentence below says a lot to that.
The basic premise of all
[mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Robert Webb
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:05 PM
To: Owen DeLong; Brett Frankenberger
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Brandon Ross
Subject: Re: Marriott wifi blocking
So is the main factor here in all the FCC verbage become that the WiFi
spectrum
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
I don't read it that way at all. It is illegal to intentionally interfere
(meaning intending to prevent others from effectively using the resource)
with any licensed or unlicensed frequency. That is long standing law.
Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety
functionality. It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters. Let's
say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to
purposely deny public service.You can almost guarantee that an
On 10/10/14 01:02, Naslund, Steve wrote:
Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety
functionality. It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters. Let's
say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to
purposely deny public
Cell phone service relies on specially licensed wireless spectrum whereas
WiFi relies on specifically unlicensed spectrum. The
rules/laws/expectations are fundamentally different for the two cases you
outlined.
Dan
On Oct 7, 2014 5:29 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
I have a
On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
sure.
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
There is a provision in the regulations somewhere that allows
underground/tunnel transmitters on licensed bands without a license,
provided certain power limits are honoured outside of the tunnel.
Perhaps they are operating under these provisions?
K
On 10/08/2014 02:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On 10/8/2014 16:11, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the various phone companies
On 10/8/2014 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote:
There is a provision in the regulations somewhere that allows
underground/tunnel transmitters on licensed bands without a license,
provided certain power limits are honoured outside of the tunnel.
Perhaps they are operating under these provisions?
Which,
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims kt...@stargate.ca wrote:
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Well... actually... passive
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:36 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
phone companies to allow this, then
On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/06/2014 10:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On
On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Clay Fiske c...@bloomcounty.org wrote:
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Jay Hennigan j...@west.net wrote:
On 10/6/14, 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
such a way that it will not
I have a question for the company assembled:
Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using
their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of
company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone
service they offered and block cell
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even
bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where
the mobile carrier is the primary
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims kt...@stargate.ca wrote:
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as long as
they are not breaking reception to
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
phone companies to allow this, then create an approved special
local cell tower all their phones in
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:36:26PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
phone companies to allow
On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions
On 10/7/2014 22:28, Roy wrote:
On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
that.
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available,
On 10/8/2014 00:35, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an area
where there's a lot of ambiguity. We don't even know for sure that
what Marriott did is illegal -- all we know is that the FCC asserted it
was and
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:32 AM, 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
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 07:57:07PM -0700, 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
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about
current state of FCC regulations.
Further, you seem to assume a level of control over client behavior that is
On Oct 5, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
* Jay Ashworth:
It is OK for an enterprise wifi system to make this sort of attack
*on rogue APs which are trying to pretend to be part of it (same
ESSID).
What if the ESSID is Free Internet, or if the network is
On 10/03/2014 04:26 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
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
On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about current
state of FCC regulations.
Further, you seem to assume a level
On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com
wrote:
For example, you've asserted that if I've been using ABCD as my SSID
for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
that,
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about
On 10/06/2014 10:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Very true. I wasn't talking
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing
I live in a condo. I have a WLAN set up. More people move in and start
setting up WLANs and the collective noise of those WLANs starts to
impact the performance of my WLAN. Just because I was there first
doesn't mean I have any right to start de-authing the newcomers. I
don't see how
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Clay Fiske c...@bloomcounty.org wrote:
Suppose from Marriott’s perspective that your personal wifi
network is interfering with the throughput of their existing network.
Then Marriott misunderstands the nature of *unlicensed* spectrum which
anyone is allowed to
On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:07 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Clay Fiske c...@bloomcounty.org wrote:
Suppose from Marriott’s perspective that your personal wifi
network is interfering with the throughput of their existing network.
Then Marriott
On 10/6/14 12:56 PM, Clay Fiske wrote:
Depending how it was actually worded by the FCC, I could see a corporation using it
in court to defend their perceived “right to protect their wifi network from
being “disrupted” by other traffic.
It's not clear that you understand how unlicensed
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Clay Fiske c...@bloomcounty.org wrote:
On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:07 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
If the microwave oven in the adjoining room makes 2.4ghz unusable I'm
out of luck. If Marriott sends deauth packets (or any other
unsolicited packets) under
On Oct 6, 2014, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Hi Clay,
It isn't that simple. Marriott offended against multiple laws and
regulations in multiple jurisdictions.
The FCC's concern is use of the spectrum. This they addressed --
intentionally preventing others' use of
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Clay Fiske c...@bloomcounty.org wrote:
legitimate right to claim that other wifi networks were impacting their own
network’s performance, specifically based on the FCC’s position that a new
transmitter should not disrupt existing operations. I was not in any way
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Clay Fiske c...@bloomcounty.org wrote:
legitimate right to claim that other wifi networks were impacting their own
network’s performance, specifically based on the FCC’s position that a new
On 10/6/14, 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing operations.
Using the same
Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about current
state of FCC regulations.
Further, you seem to assume a level of control over client behavior that is
rare in my experience.
Owen
On Oct 4, 2014, at 13:44, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/04/2014
On Oct 4, 2014, at 17:58, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 01:33:13PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Michael Thomas wrote:
The problem is that there's really no such
On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about current
state of FCC regulations.
Further, you seem to assume a level of control over client behavior that is
rare in my experience.
Owen
I this particular case, I think that
Perhaps. I admit that trademark would be a novel approach that might succeed.
Of course if I put a satire of Starbucks up on the captive portal, do I qualify
under the fair use doctrine for satire?
I think in most cases, people are able to be adults and work it out reasonably
without involving
On 10/4/2014 12:23, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Majdi S. Abbas m...@latt.net
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
* Jay Ashworth:
It is OK for an enterprise wifi system to make this sort of attack
*on rogue APs which are trying to pretend to be part of it (same
ESSID).
What if the ESSID is Free Internet, or if the network is completely
open? Does it change things if you have data that shows your
Well now, Florian, there you lead me into deep water. I am inclined to say that
that circumstance would fall into the category of things you might have a
valid reason to want to do, but which the regulations might prevent you from
doing even if they are drawn thoughtfully.
Myself, I am
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
This would be why commercial entities
often use their trademark identifiers
as part of the SSID. You can compel
them (briefly) not to use the SSID, until
they sue you for trademark infringement
and serve
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an area
where there's a lot of ambiguity. We don't even know for sure that
what Marriott did is illegal -- all we know is that the FCC asserted it
was and Mariott
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com wrote:
For example, you've asserted that if I've been using ABCD as my SSID
for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
that, that I have to change. But that if, instead of duplicating my
[snip]
Most crimes not committed by government entities have to go through an
indictment-trial-conviction sequence before punisihment is administered.
Except in Chicago.
Whereas most crimes committed by government entities go through the same
process and are then not punished.
Owen
On 10/4/2014 01:37, Owen DeLong wrote:
Most crimes not committed by government entities have to go through
an indictment-trial-conviction sequence before punisihment is
administered.
Except in Chicago.
Whereas most crimes committed by government entities go through the
same process and are
On 10/3/14, 10:03 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
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
On 10/4/2014 01:37, Owen DeLong wrote:
Most crimes not committed by government entities have to go through
an indictment-trial-conviction sequence before punisihment is
administered.
Except in Chicago.
Whereas most crimes committed by government entities go through the
same process and
- Original Message -
From: Majdi S. Abbas m...@latt.net
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
On 10/04/2014 10:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Majdi makes an excellent point, but I want to clarify it, so no one misses
the important subtext:
It is OK for an enterprise wifi system to make this sort of attack *on rogue
APs which are trying to pretend to be part of it (same ESSID).
It is NOT
On 4 Oct 2014, at 12:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/04/2014 10:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
So I work in a small office in a building that has many enterprise
wifi's I can see
whether I like it or not. What if one of them decided that our wifi
was rogue and
started trying to stamp it out?
On Oct 4, 2014, at 06:56 , Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:
On 10/4/2014 01:37, Owen DeLong wrote:
Most crimes not committed by government entities have to go through
an indictment-trial-conviction sequence before punisihment is
administered.
Except in Chicago.
Whereas
- Original Message -
From: Chris Marget ch...@marget.com
You [I] said:
It is OK for an enterprise wifi system to make this sort of attack
*on rogue APs which are trying to pretend to be part of it (same ESSID).
I'm curious to hear how you'd rationalize containing a copycat AP
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Chris Marget ch...@marget.com
You [I] said:
It is OK for an enterprise wifi system to make this sort of attack
*on rogue APs which are trying to pretend to be part of it (same
On 10/04/2014 11:47 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
A copycat AP is unquestionably hostile, and likely interfering with users,
but I'm unconvinced that the hostility triggers a privilege to attack it
under part 15 rules. In addition to not being allowed to interfere, we also
have:
You're not attacking
Sounds likely at least in unlicensed bands
Jared Mauch
On Oct 3, 2014, at 8:15 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
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Michael Thomas wrote:
The problem is that there's really no such thing as a copycat if the
client doesn't have the means of authenticating the destination. If
that's really the requirement, people should start bitching to ieee to
get destination auth on ap's instead of
On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Michael Thomas wrote:
The problem is that there's really no such thing as a copycat if the
client doesn't have the means of authenticating the destination. If that's
really the requirement, people should
On 10/04/2014 01:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Michael Thomas wrote:
The problem is that there's really no such thing as a copycat if the client
doesn't have the means of authenticating the destination. If that's
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
Again: you've shifted topics here from enterprise rogue protection
(stay off *my* ESSID) to Marriott Attack (stay off all ESSIDs that
*aren't* mine); different thing entirely.
Don't forget the 3rd stay off this channel go use another used at
large scale
You could monitor it with something like airodump-ng and send deauth
packets if its not associated with your own BSSID(s)
On 3 October 2014 21:06, David Hubbard dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com
wrote:
Saw this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/
The
I would think this would not sit very well with the providers. They've
likely installed equip nearby to the hotel conv.ctr in order to
adequately handle the concentration of devices at that location. True?
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Michael O Holstein
michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:48 PM, SML s...@lordsargon.com wrote:
On 4 Oct 2014, at 12:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/04/2014 10:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
So I work in a small office in a building that has many enterprise
whether I like it or not. What if one of them decided that our wifi was
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 01:33:13PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Michael Thomas wrote:
The problem is that there's really no such thing as a copycat if
the client doesn't have the means of authenticating
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com
wrote:
...
So your position is that if I start using Starbuck's SSID in a location
where there is no Starbuck, and they layer move in to that building,
I'm entitled to compel them to not use their SSID?
This would be
Not sure the specific implementation. But I've heard of Rouge AP detection
done in two ways.
1. Associate to the Rouge ap. Send a packet, See if it appears on your
network, Shut the port off it appeared from. I think this is the cisco way?
Not sure. This is automated of course. This method
I'm aware of how the illegal wifi blocking devices work, but
any idea what legal hardware they were using to effectively
keep their own wifi available but render everyone else's
inaccessible?
Doesn't Cisco and other vendors offer rouge AP squashing features?
- Ethan
legality is questionable insofar as this device must not cause harmful
interference of PartB
but how it works is by sending DEAUTH packets with spoofed MAC addresses
rouge AP response on Cisco/Aruba works like this.
Regards,
Michael Holstein
Cleveland State University
On Friday 03 October 2014 13:06:55 David Hubbard wrote:
...
I'm aware of how the illegal wifi blocking devices work, but
any idea what legal hardware they were using to effectively
keep their own wifi available but render everyone else's
inaccessible?
From other discussions, they were
There are IPS features in nearly all of the 'enterprise' level wireless
products now:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/adaptive-wireless-ips-software/data_sheet_c78-501388.html
http://www.aerohive.com/solutions/applications/secure.html
Doing a search for WIPs - or
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
