As I read the case, sending deauth's is exactly what the Marriot's system was doing.
We used don't have that bad of a rogue issue since we upgraded our WiFi in the dorms three years ago. I think I had 3 this year, and I just track them down the best I can (by me I mean my student worker), and have a polite conversation with the offender. I haven't had a problem with this method, though I've never been faced with 700 rogues. What types of devices are being classified as rogues? -- Heath Barnhart ITS Network Administrator Washburn University 785-670-2307 On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 11:39 -0400, Philippe Hanset wrote: I think that the Marriott court case needs to be put into perspective. Many of us have been quarantining rogue APs without any trouble. The Marriott case is somewhat different. They were preventing all Wi-Fi from being enabled and they were selling theirs as the only Wi-Fi around. BTW, rogue containment is usually not "jamming". Jamming requires to interfere with the spectrum. Some of those smart containment software don't actually jam the frequency but send a disassociation frame to a specific client. Also a lot of us are preventing rogue APs that are actually interfering with the University Infrastructure on the same frequencies. Those students are actually the jammers in this case and I don't see why you couldn't protect yourself by preventing them from interfering with the University Wi-Fi on University grounds. As I wrote above, the Marriott case is being taken way too literally and being blown out of proportions. I doubt that the FCC will come to you because you are actually trying to provide a service to your community and for free. Just make sure that you only block channels that you are using (and a few around to guarantee non overlapping) and not ALL of them! And don't use containment on the coffee shop next door ;-) My 1.99 cents, Philippe Philippe Hanset www.anyroam.net<http://www.anyroam.net> On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Ian McDonald <i...@st-andrews.ac.uk<mailto:i...@st-andrews.ac.uk>> wrote: Breach of your written policy prohibiting such things isn’t a disciplinary matter? And can’t be fixed with your disciplinary system? From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of T. Shayne Ghere Sent: 16 October 2014 16:11 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Wireless in Dorms Good morning. Let me say first off, we’re nearly a complete Cisco shop other than our Firewalls right now. We are running 3 – Cisco 5508 Wireless Lan Controllers and Cisco WCS. The AP’s in the Dorm’s and Greek houses are all 1142N AP’s and have been spaced accordingly by Cisco and by us during the introduction of wireless in the Dorms, Greeks and Single housing. We are having a heck of a time with all the interference that the students bring with them making our wireless nearly unusable. I know this topic has come up in the past, but this year is one of the worst we’ve seen, and the students are getting restless. We have the ability to quarantine rogue Wireless clients, however according to a recent Court case against a large Hotel Chain, it was decided that on an open free wireless spectrum, we would be breaking the law in jamming it. How have you addressed this issue? I’m about ready to ask upper management to remove the AP’s in all the Dorm buildings and let the students bring their own AP’s if they want wireless. Has anyone resorted to this? Thanks for your input Shayne ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found athttp://www.educause.edu/groups/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
