5 ms·

From a network admin's perspective- this is necessary to protect the integrity of the air space. It discourages the use of rogue AP's which wreck the channel ut

From a network admin's perspective- this is necessary to protect the integrity of the air space. It discourages the use of rogue AP's which wreck the channel utilization for everyone. It's common to find this feature in enterprise wifi systems. Some actively spoof the SSID of the rogue AP in order to draw the client back to the institution's network.

jhayward 7y ago
In the US, that practice is black-letter illegal. A major hotel chain had to pay a rather large fine for doing exactly what you describe.[1] There is no private property right to the radio frequency energy traversing someone's property. The owner / lessor of a property may not interfere in someone's use of the airwaves. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fin...
Avamander 7y ago
Too bad for the admins then that newer standards don't tolerate this fuckery.
gruez 7y ago
And what about the people who don't/can't use the institution's network? Why should the institution be allowed to effectively monopolize the unlicensed airwaves?
- akersten 7y ago
  Why not? It's unlicensed, so it's a free-for-all. If we don't like that, the answer is to license it. Which doesn't seem better to me.
  - gruez 7y ago
    >Why not? It's unlicensed, so it's a free-for-all. Unlicensed doesn't mean no rules. For example, even though 2.4 Ghz is unlicensed, you're still subject to transmission power limits. In the US at least, there's also statues against interference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333
  - megous 7y ago
    There are still many rules to follow when using unlicensed frequency ranges. So it's not free for all, really.
- tzs 7y ago
  If I was in some kind of debate club or moot court or something like that and got assigned to side that is supposed to argue for allowing this, I'd probably look into some kind of property rights approach and make a distinction between radio waves transiting the property and radio waves that originate on the property. The property owner could make not operating an access point on the property a condition of granting permission to enter the property. Someone who then operated an access point would be trespassing and they (and their access) point could be evicted. In other words, the property owner is already allowed to monopolize those unlicensed airwaves on their property. If they choose to exercise this monopoly by using technical measures to stop other access points from working, rather than by physically evicting those access points, why should that make a difference as long as those technical measures do not interfere with access point not on their property?
  - gruez 7y ago
    >If they choose to exercise this monopoly by using technical measures to stop other access points from working, rather than by physically evicting those access points, why should that make a difference as long as those technical measures do not interfere with access point not on their property? By the same argument, can I also ban cellphones from my property and set up cellphone jammers to enforce this ban? You're free to set up arbitrary "rules" and ban people from your property for it, but that doesn't mean you're deputized by the government to do whatever you want to enforce those rules.
    - im3w1l 7y ago
      Emergency calls are given a lot of special protections, and for this reason, you cannot.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    Can you prove that you wont deauth people just outside your property? Probably not.
crumble 7y ago
From a security/technology standpoint I do not see any gain in using deauthentication packets against others. Any (half decent) skilled enough attacker will find ways to counteract these (e.g. by enabling PMF/WPA3 or using a stronger signal) or just leaving the property if a movable end device is attacked. A network and end devices are secure by design or they are not. Separation of privileges, different accounts, multi factor authentication, certificates, modern protocols, no single password policy… Making users, superiors or yourself believe that one is “secure” because of using deauthentication packets will actually result in the opposite because it will hide the existing structural security issues in your network/end devices and give a false sense of security. What remains as argument is the service quality aspect. One wants to deliver the best wireless quality. Either because of own quality needs or because for a production environment. In either case one is using an unlicensed band that still has certain constraints based on the country. The choice of technology might just not be the right one for these needs. How about 5G? I can imagine that one can define certain rules only for a private property though. Radio waves usually do not stop on property fences. One would need to convince a court that it is 100% certain that deauthentication packets can not reach others outside of the property. I guess if the property is big enough that will work or one puts up a Faraday cage around the property or building. Still one can not send with more power as it might have health consequences for employees or visitors. Private property right is solely for how one uses the property and whom is given access to under what conditions. It does not allow a completely new rule set that conflicts with the “surrounding” law (not to mention human rights). One can still not lawfully murder a person on their private property just because the own property rules allow it. For public universities I do not see any way to implement wireless restrictions in any lawful way. Their properties are usually public for everyone. So making rules for employees and students that can not be enforced on visitors is probably against the principle of equal treatment. Then there is the constitutional Academic Freedom in most democratic countries. Not allowing researchers or teachers to freely choose the technology suited for their needs is probably against the constitutions of these states. Also students can not be denied access to a university because of such a rule set because they have freedom of choice where and what they want to study. Last but not least we discuss this because of a WPA design flaw that is fixed with PMF/WPA3. If we would not have had this flaw to begin with I guess we would never ever had this discussion as we do not have it for Bluetooth or wireless mice/keyboard combos or other wireless protocols that use the same frequency bands. And finally I wonder about the mindset of the mentioned network admin’s. I can not agree if one assumes just because an organization might have more people or more important ones or richer ones or has a higher building or … to then assume might is right and enforcing it by using design flaws in network protocols. This will eventually lead to an arms race with no winner at all.

jhayward 7y ago

In the US, that practice is black-letter illegal. A major hotel chain had to pay a rather large fine for doing exactly what you describe.[1] There is no private property right to the radio frequency energy traversing someone's property. The owner / lessor of a property may not interfere in someone's use of the airwaves. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fin...

Avamander 7y ago

Too bad for the admins then that newer standards don't tolerate this fuckery.

gruez 7y ago

And what about the people who don't/can't use the institution's network? Why should the institution be allowed to effectively monopolize the unlicensed airwaves?

akersten 7y ago
Why not? It's unlicensed, so it's a free-for-all. If we don't like that, the answer is to license it. Which doesn't seem better to me.
- gruez 7y ago
  >Why not? It's unlicensed, so it's a free-for-all. Unlicensed doesn't mean no rules. For example, even though 2.4 Ghz is unlicensed, you're still subject to transmission power limits. In the US at least, there's also statues against interference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333
- megous 7y ago
  There are still many rules to follow when using unlicensed frequency ranges. So it's not free for all, really.
tzs 7y ago
If I was in some kind of debate club or moot court or something like that and got assigned to side that is supposed to argue for allowing this, I'd probably look into some kind of property rights approach and make a distinction between radio waves transiting the property and radio waves that originate on the property. The property owner could make not operating an access point on the property a condition of granting permission to enter the property. Someone who then operated an access point would be trespassing and they (and their access) point could be evicted. In other words, the property owner is already allowed to monopolize those unlicensed airwaves on their property. If they choose to exercise this monopoly by using technical measures to stop other access points from working, rather than by physically evicting those access points, why should that make a difference as long as those technical measures do not interfere with access point not on their property?
- gruez 7y ago
  >If they choose to exercise this monopoly by using technical measures to stop other access points from working, rather than by physically evicting those access points, why should that make a difference as long as those technical measures do not interfere with access point not on their property? By the same argument, can I also ban cellphones from my property and set up cellphone jammers to enforce this ban? You're free to set up arbitrary "rules" and ban people from your property for it, but that doesn't mean you're deputized by the government to do whatever you want to enforce those rules.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    Emergency calls are given a lot of special protections, and for this reason, you cannot.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  Can you prove that you wont deauth people just outside your property? Probably not.

crumble 7y ago

From a security/technology standpoint I do not see any gain in using deauthentication packets against others. Any (half decent) skilled enough attacker will find ways to counteract these (e.g. by enabling PMF/WPA3 or using a stronger signal) or just leaving the property if a movable end device is attacked. A network and end devices are secure by design or they are not. Separation of privileges, different accounts, multi factor authentication, certificates, modern protocols, no single password policy… Making users, superiors or yourself believe that one is “secure” because of using deauthentication packets will actually result in the opposite because it will hide the existing structural security issues in your network/end devices and give a false sense of security. What remains as argument is the service quality aspect. One wants to deliver the best wireless quality. Either because of own quality needs or because for a production environment. In either case one is using an unlicensed band that still has certain constraints based on the country. The choice of technology might just not be the right one for these needs. How about 5G? I can imagine that one can define certain rules only for a private property though. Radio waves usually do not stop on property fences. One would need to convince a court that it is 100% certain that deauthentication packets can not reach others outside of the property. I guess if the property is big enough that will work or one puts up a Faraday cage around the property or building. Still one can not send with more power as it might have health consequences for employees or visitors. Private property right is solely for how one uses the property and whom is given access to under what conditions. It does not allow a completely new rule set that conflicts with the “surrounding” law (not to mention human rights). One can still not lawfully murder a person on their private property just because the own property rules allow it. For public universities I do not see any way to implement wireless restrictions in any lawful way. Their properties are usually public for everyone. So making rules for employees and students that can not be enforced on visitors is probably against the principle of equal treatment. Then there is the constitutional Academic Freedom in most democratic countries. Not allowing researchers or teachers to freely choose the technology suited for their needs is probably against the constitutions of these states. Also students can not be denied access to a university because of such a rule set because they have freedom of choice where and what they want to study. Last but not least we discuss this because of a WPA design flaw that is fixed with PMF/WPA3. If we would not have had this flaw to begin with I guess we would never ever had this discussion as we do not have it for Bluetooth or wireless mice/keyboard combos or other wireless protocols that use the same frequency bands. And finally I wonder about the mindset of the mentioned network admin’s. I can not agree if one assumes just because an organization might have more people or more important ones or richer ones or has a higher building or … to then assume might is right and enforcing it by using design flaws in network protocols. This will eventually lead to an arms race with no winner at all.