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 interfere
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 wrote:
>
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"
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
>
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:
On Oct 3, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> Jay,
>
> Killing hotspots of completely discrete networks "because $$$" is heinous. I
> had extended this to e.g.:
>
It’s not just Marriott doing this; A friend of mine went to a convention near
DC and found the venue was doing something
No problem, Hugo.
In fact, if you paid for Wired service and plugged your own router in, you
would still be creating your own network, and not pretending to be the hotel's
network. At the RF layer.
So it would not be legal for them to zap that either. Doing so might /violate
your agreement f
Jay,
Thanks; I think I was stretching this a bit far beyond just the Marriott
example. Killing hotspots of completely discrete networks "because $$$"
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 e
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.
On Sat 2014-Oct-04 08:37:32 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
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 WLA
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, obstruc
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
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" 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 as
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 19:45:57 -0700, Michael Van Norman wrote:
On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, "Hugo Slabbert" wrote:
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman
wrote:
IANAL, but I believe they are. State laws may also apply (e.g.
California
Code - Section 502). In California, it is illega
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 leg
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" wrote:
>On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -070
On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, "Hugo Slabbert" wrote:
>On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman
>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 cause
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , 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
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 p
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman 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 cau
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
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 co
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard 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 communicatio
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-
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 wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ricky Beam"
>
>> It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and carries no
>> authenti
- Original Message -
> From: "Ricky Beam"
> 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
On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , 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 ima
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 a
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 a
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,
On 10/3/14 3:44 PM, "Lyle Giese" 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 fi
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 F
>>>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 c
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:01:21 -0600, 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' packet
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 spe
> 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
ph
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:16:22 -0400, Nick Olsen 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
Yes, I've tested it quite effectively using WLC 5508 and a AIR-CAP3502I-A-K9
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 16:15:37 -0400
> From: telmn...@757.org
> CC: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Marriott wifi blocking
>
> > I'm aware of how the illegal wifi blocking devices wo
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of David Hubbard
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 3:07 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Marriott wifi blocking
Saw this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/
The interesting part:
'A federal in
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 16:16:22 -0400
"Nick Olsen" wrote:
> Not sure the specific implementation. But I've heard of Rouge AP
> detection done in two ways.
Relation discussion on this topic has come up from time to time. I
believe the last time was in a thread that starts here and includes
various m
>but how it works is by sending DEAUTH packets with spoofed MAC addresses
>"rouge AP" response on Cisco/Aruba works like this.
DIY version if you want to try it out .. just download Kali/Backtrack or
compile aircrack-ng
http://www.aircrack-ng.org/doku.php?id=deauthentication
Regards,
Michael H
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 browsi
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
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
___
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 O'
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
101 - 146 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
