5 ms·

Deauthentication attack and other ‘wifi hacks’ using an ESP8266 module

54 points by infosecrf 9y ago

wolframio 9y ago
I did a quick search of the forums but didn't find anything related to this. I came across this page on the FCC's site that states deauth attacks and jamming of WiFi are illegal in the US as of January, 2015. They also state the following: In addition, we reiterate that Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with Wi-Fi, cellular, or public safety communications. Detailed information about the prohibition against jamming is available on the Commission’s website at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement. If you read the example they gave about a Marriott hotel deauthenticating users it appears the FCC doesn't know the different between that and jamming a signal. Of course they added that catch-all statement that any device that interferes with WiFi communications is illegal. Page 2 of that document states that no commercial establishment is allowed to block WiFi communication but the next paragraph down has the quote I posted above. It would appear that using the deauth feature of the Pineapple is now illegal, unless if I'm misinterpreting this.
- blackguardx 9y ago
  From the FCC's point of view, performing any denial of service attack on a radio channel using either old fashioned jamming or other technological means is illegal. It doesn't have to distinguish between the two because the intent and end result are the same.
  - seanp2k2 9y ago
    What about using bandwidth to the extent that it degrades performance for other users? Is using 80Mhz for my wifi for my legitimate use-cases in my apartment while copying lots of photos to my NAS and thus using up most of that an attack? It would measurably degrade the performance of nearby wifi, and given a location in an apartment and my naive default power levels of "everything to max" (as most wifi routers operate by default)... Why is everyone in an apartment who isn't a radio engineer guilty of interference given the broad definition? I know that it's only who they choose to prosecute, but that seems to be the problem with laws like this.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - wbl 9y ago
      Incompetence is different from malice. The FCC should do more to get manufacturers improving WiFi congestion and improving power supply cleanness.
    - blackguardx 9y ago
      They aren't guilty of interference. Interference has a strict definition. A device operating in the ISM band by defition can't be interfering with other devices in the ISM band if that bandwidth is being used for communication. ISM (Industry, Science, and Medical) is a free for all band. It is like a public good. Anyone can make a device that uses those frequencies.
blacksmith_tb 9y ago
A while back I remember seeing a less-nuanced ESP8266 wifi jammer, it announces a huge number of APs with random names, making it hard for devices to connect to real networks: http://ruralhacker.blogspot.pt/2016/01/esp8266-jamming.html http://ruralhacker.blogspot.pt/2016/01/esp8266-jamming.html
- gruez 9y ago
  >it announces a huge number of APs with random names, making it hard for devices to connect to real networks How does that even work? I get it will prevent someone from choosing the right network to join, but I can't imagine how it prevents connection if the network is already remembered (ie. autoconnect)
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    It jams the announcement channels, and lots of devices only show the X strongest networks so the autoconnecters which get their listing after said filter don't see the real network at all as a candidate when the jammer is sending strong enough.
ram_rattle 9y ago
Again, already known project appearing in front page again
- confounded 9y ago
  Not known to me, I'm glad it was posted!
- stronglikedan 9y ago
  Every project is already known by someone.
samueloph 9y ago
Just a friendly reminder that there's also mdk3[1], which i think is not under active development now but it works. Also, i'm the maintainer of mdk3 on Debian and if any mdk3's dev is reading this, please have a look at the patches i applied upon it[2] and consider merging upstream, or putting the code on github. There's also a manpage[3]. [1]https://packages.debian.org/sid/net/mdk3 https://packages.debian.org/sid/net/mdk3 [2]https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-security/mdk3.git/tree/debian/patches https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-security/mdk3.git/tree/de... [3]https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-security/mdk3.git/tree/debian/mdk3.1 https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-security/mdk3.git/tree/de...
daveloyall 9y ago
I'm in the market for a cheap device that will detect this and a variety of other such attacks. Bonus points and bonus money if it can somehow reveal the physical location of the attacking device. Perhaps in the manner of a Geiger counter (some sound or light changes as you approach the attacker).
TempleOS 9y ago
https://glot.io/snippets/ee0wub5ywy https://glot.io/snippets/ee0wub5ywy
banterfoil 9y ago
Honest question here. Can somebody explain why a device is needed for this? How does this differ from this project? https://github.com/k4m4/kickthemout https://github.com/k4m4/kickthemout

54 points by infosecrf 9y ago

I did a quick search of the forums but didn't find anything related to this. I came across this page on the FCC's site that states deauth attacks and jamming of WiFi are illegal in the US as of January, 2015. They also state the following: In addition, we reiterate that Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with Wi-Fi, cellular, or public safety communications. Detailed information about the prohibition against jamming is available on the Commission’s website at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement. If you read the example they gave about a Marriott hotel deauthenticating users it appears the FCC doesn't know the different between that and jamming a signal. Of course they added that catch-all statement that any device that interferes with WiFi communications is illegal. Page 2 of that document states that no commercial establishment is allowed to block WiFi communication but the next paragraph down has the quote I posted above. It would appear that using the deauth feature of the Pineapple is now illegal, unless if I'm misinterpreting this.

blackguardx 9y ago
From the FCC's point of view, performing any denial of service attack on a radio channel using either old fashioned jamming or other technological means is illegal. It doesn't have to distinguish between the two because the intent and end result are the same.
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  What about using bandwidth to the extent that it degrades performance for other users? Is using 80Mhz for my wifi for my legitimate use-cases in my apartment while copying lots of photos to my NAS and thus using up most of that an attack? It would measurably degrade the performance of nearby wifi, and given a location in an apartment and my naive default power levels of "everything to max" (as most wifi routers operate by default)... Why is everyone in an apartment who isn't a radio engineer guilty of interference given the broad definition? I know that it's only who they choose to prosecute, but that seems to be the problem with laws like this.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - wbl 9y ago
    Incompetence is different from malice. The FCC should do more to get manufacturers improving WiFi congestion and improving power supply cleanness.
  - blackguardx 9y ago
    They aren't guilty of interference. Interference has a strict definition. A device operating in the ISM band by defition can't be interfering with other devices in the ISM band if that bandwidth is being used for communication. ISM (Industry, Science, and Medical) is a free for all band. It is like a public good. Anyone can make a device that uses those frequencies.

blacksmith_tb 9y ago

A while back I remember seeing a less-nuanced ESP8266 wifi jammer, it announces a huge number of APs with random names, making it hard for devices to connect to real networks: http://ruralhacker.blogspot.pt/2016/01/esp8266-jamming.html http://ruralhacker.blogspot.pt/2016/01/esp8266-jamming.html

gruez 9y ago
>it announces a huge number of APs with random names, making it hard for devices to connect to real networks How does that even work? I get it will prevent someone from choosing the right network to join, but I can't imagine how it prevents connection if the network is already remembered (ie. autoconnect)
- mschuster91 9y ago
  It jams the announcement channels, and lots of devices only show the X strongest networks so the autoconnecters which get their listing after said filter don't see the real network at all as a candidate when the jammer is sending strong enough.

ram_rattle 9y ago

Again, already known project appearing in front page again

confounded 9y ago
Not known to me, I'm glad it was posted!
stronglikedan 9y ago
Every project is already known by someone.

samueloph 9y ago

Just a friendly reminder that there's also mdk3[1], which i think is not under active development now but it works. Also, i'm the maintainer of mdk3 on Debian and if any mdk3's dev is reading this, please have a look at the patches i applied upon it[2] and consider merging upstream, or putting the code on github. There's also a manpage[3]. [1]https://packages.debian.org/sid/net/mdk3 https://packages.debian.org/sid/net/mdk3 [2]https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-security/mdk3.git/tree/debian/patches https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-security/mdk3.git/tree/de... [3]https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-security/mdk3.git/tree/debian/mdk3.1 https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-security/mdk3.git/tree/de...

daveloyall 9y ago

I'm in the market for a cheap device that will detect this and a variety of other such attacks. Bonus points and bonus money if it can somehow reveal the physical location of the attacking device. Perhaps in the manner of a Geiger counter (some sound or light changes as you approach the attacker).

TempleOS 9y ago

https://glot.io/snippets/ee0wub5ywy https://glot.io/snippets/ee0wub5ywy

banterfoil 9y ago

Honest question here. Can somebody explain why a device is needed for this? How does this differ from this project? https://github.com/k4m4/kickthemout https://github.com/k4m4/kickthemout