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 10/04/2014 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 e
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 17:58, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 01:33:13PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross wrote:
>>>
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Michael Thomas wrote:
The problem is that there's really no such thing as a
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 wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/2014 01:33 PM,
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Brett Frankenberger
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 why commercial
I have a contact. I ill dig it up.
On 10/3/14, 10:33 AM, "Daniel Corbe" 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?
>
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 01:33:13PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross 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 th
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:48 PM, SML 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
>> "rogue"
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
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
wrote:
> Saw this article:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/
>
> The interesting part:
>
> 'A federal i
> From: Jay Ashworth
> 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 events whe
On 10/04/2014 01:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross 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
r
On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross 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 start b
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 bl
Sounds likely at least in unlicensed bands
Jared Mauch
> On Oct 3, 2014, at 8:15 PM, Mike Hale 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 wrote:
>> - Original Messag
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 i
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Chris Marget"
>
> > 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
- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Marget"
> 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
> under
On Oct 4, 2014, at 06:56 , Bob Evans 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 most
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 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 OK
- Original Message -
> From: "Majdi S. Abbas"
> 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 informat
> 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
>
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
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wifi offered by a carrier citywide, or free wifi signals from a nearby
>>> hotel / park / coffee shop..
>>
>> Perfect example (thanks)
24 matches
Mail list logo
