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 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
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 all
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 pub
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 F
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Naslund, Steve 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.
Indeed… this i
teve Naslund
Chicago IL
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [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 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
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger 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 share the spectrum?
On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger 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 did is il
> On Oct 9, 2014, at 03:57, Larry Sheldon 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?
>>
>> The t
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 translat
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:16 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin
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 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli 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
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 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli 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
> 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. Yo
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli 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 co
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, th
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims 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 l
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, i
On 10/8/2014 16:11, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli 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 equi
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 Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli 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
>>> backha
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 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:
>
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy 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,
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy 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.
>>>
>>> How
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
expec
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" wrote:
> I have a question for the compa
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 expectati
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, they'r
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.
pgpz6n3Z670ZN
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 emphas
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 "recogn
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 a
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 servic
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 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 phone
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims 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 nearby properti
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
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 ph
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Jay Hennigan 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 cau
On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Clay Fiske wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 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 n
On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 10:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Ow
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 sam
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Clay Fiske 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 existi
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Clay Fiske 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
>intending to say t
On Oct 6, 2014, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin 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 the spec
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Clay Fiske wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:07 PM, William Herrin 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 my SSID, they're hacking my
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 spectr
On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:07 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Clay Fiske 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 *unlicen
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Clay Fiske 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 use. There's a differ
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 Marrio
On Oct 6, 2014, at 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.
I rec
On 10/06/2014 10:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was ta
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas 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
On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger
> 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 th
On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas 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 ov
On 10/03/2014 04:26 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
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.
On Oct 5, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Florian Weimer 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 completely
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas 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
>> r
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 t
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Jay Ashworth 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 att
> 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
> > > w
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger 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]
Actually... I w
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
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Petach"
> 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 cease-and-desist orders aga
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 inclin
* 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
cus
On 10/4/2014 12:23, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- 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 s
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
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"
ds,
>
> Michael Holstein
> Cleveland State University
>
> From: NANOG on behalf of David Hubbard <
> dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 4:06 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Marriott wifi blocking
>
>
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)
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 the
> 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 10/3/2014 23:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
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.
+1
What happens if th
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) of why cutting off network attachment points
would be fair ga
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 Sys
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 a
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,
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
