11 ms·

Super Bowl to handle 30,000 Wi-Fi users, sniff out “rogue devices”

40 points by iProject 14y ago

newman314 14y ago
I wonder how many people are going to be sniffing the open network.
- pokoleo 14y ago
  As a percentage, I'm calling 2%
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    I think that is wildly optimistic. I'd be surprised if 2% were not drinking, though there may be some overlap.
    - mirkules 14y ago
      The only thing more dangerous than bored hackers is drunk bored hackers. Bur seriously, with only 11 minutes of action in a 3-hour event, 2% may be realistic.
      - heartbreak 14y ago
        The 11 minutes number assumes that you don't consider the formation (and constantly changing formations) before the actual play is run to be interesting. Although the Super Bowl isn't known for attracting "true" fans, I would hope that "true" football fans would appreciate the intricacies that take place before and after the plays are run. Edit: And honestly you think 1,400 people are going to be trying to sniff the WiFi from within the Super Dome?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I'm guessing the number will be closer to 2 than 2%. What is the overlap of "people with enough money and interest to go to the super bowl", and "people who know how to sniff open wifi, and actually bother to", and "people who would bother to at this event"? I mean, I know how to sniff wifi, putting me I suspect in a already small portion of the general population. Even so, I haven't bothered in years; I have better things to do. Sure, some people may sit in coffee shops and do it for monetary gain, but will those people be buying superbowl tickets?
  - mcpherrinm 14y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if 2% of the crowd at DEFCON was sniffing the wifi at any point. But at the Superbowl? People don't bring laptops to the superbowl.
diminoten 14y ago
I feel like 30,000 concurrent users is woefully underestimated. The article says "During the Super Bowl, the network will be able to handle up to 30,000 simultaneous connections, which should be enough." but I wonder where that estimate came from. I would double that, in my estimates, given the kinds of people even capable of securing Super Bowl tickets. W're not talking about a fair sample of the US population here, we're talking about 80k at-least middle class fans, which I'd imagine raises the likelihood of a wireless-capable device being in their pockets significantly. Again from the article: "As long as 100 percent of the people in there don't take out their cellular device and switch it to the Wi-Fi network, it should be fine." Given the fact that it's an open network, why do these people even need to take out their device at all? Many phone will jump onto an open network if at all possible, won't they? I'd be interested in a post-mortem after the event to determine the effectiveness of the Wi-Fi plan.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  I think the majority of people will be absorbed in the game and entertainment. When I go to a sports game it has to be a poor match for me to start laying with my phone. I might check it while waiting in line for a hot dog or something, but the number of people wandering around << the number of people in their seats.
  - TsiCClawOfLight 14y ago
    what game? you mean the downtime between the rare actions? I enjoy football, but the way it's monetized by the NFL is simply sickening.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      True, but irrelevant.
  - klinquist 14y ago
    You will essentially have zero cell coverage in the stadium.. iphone / imessage users can use the wifi to send/receive texts... "hey need another beer?"
ImprovedSilence 14y ago
Better not use that microwave in your luxury box, the Mercedes-benz-superdome-FCC will be on your ass in a hot second.....
rdtsc 14y ago
Is the issue interference or they want to stop people taking pictures and sending them or offering free hot spots?
- mikestew 14y ago
  They don't want some rogue devices screwing it up for everyone else. The stadium is offering free WiFi, so there's no attempt to block communications and there is no need for kind souls to offer free WiFi.
mprovost 14y ago
Is this even legal? Aren't the frequencies used by wi-fi explicitly set up to be unregulated by the FCC? Can a private company force you to turn off a device legally operating on those frequencies?
- mikestew 14y ago
  They don't make you turn off anything. You simply can't bring it in. Just like you can't bring in your own food or drink. The FCC and radio spectrum legalities don't enter into it.
Benferhat 14y ago
One person with WifiKill[0] is going to spoil it for everyone. [0] http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1282900 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1282900
- amalag 14y ago
  They claim to have spectral analysis solutions. Does that mean they are going to zero in on the offenders? It is probably technically possible.
  - haakon666 14y ago
    It's a Cisco setup so they will be using their CleanAir feature to identify and triangulate sources of interference. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns1070/index.html http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns1070/index.html
StevenXC 14y ago
> Well, maybe not. The NFL manages to spread 60 minutes of clock time across three hours in a typical game. What with time running off the clock between plays and the typical play lasting about four seconds, an average game ends up with only 11 minutes of action. Setting aside the fact that this entire paragraph was irrelevant to the point of the article, it always irritates me as a (college) football fan when people cite this statistic. There are far more than 60 minutes of "action" from kickoff to the final play. Most of American football is actually about strategy - if you're completely ignoring what happens between when the play is whistled dead and when the ball is snapped next, you're going to be very confused, and I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't enjoy it. But we can all agree that TV timeouts suck when you're in the stadium.
trout 14y ago
For the curious, this is a small scale map of what they'll be viewing: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps5755/ps6301/ps6386/images/0900aecd806364db_null_null_null_05_03_05-3.jpg http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps5755/p... I would be really curious to what the wireless spectrum looks like at an event like that. Most football fans won't bring more than a phone, but with 80,000 people there will be some outliers. Maybe someone decides to bring a walkie talkie set that works over the 2.4 Ghz band, lots of people with bluetooth headsets, or other odd bluetooth devices. Wireless cameras can ruin Wifi on the same bands. Monitoring 'rogue' devices is actually a requirement of all parts of a business that handle credit card transactions (PCI). It's to prevent card card data from leaking out of a planted wireless device (small device plugged into bag of a register/pc, etc). That's one of the main drivers for this technology existing beyond anything else.

40 points by iProject 14y ago

newman314 14y ago

I wonder how many people are going to be sniffing the open network.

pokoleo 14y ago
As a percentage, I'm calling 2%
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  I think that is wildly optimistic. I'd be surprised if 2% were not drinking, though there may be some overlap.
  - mirkules 14y ago
    The only thing more dangerous than bored hackers is drunk bored hackers. Bur seriously, with only 11 minutes of action in a 3-hour event, 2% may be realistic.
    - heartbreak 14y ago
      The 11 minutes number assumes that you don't consider the formation (and constantly changing formations) before the actual play is run to be interesting. Although the Super Bowl isn't known for attracting "true" fans, I would hope that "true" football fans would appreciate the intricacies that take place before and after the plays are run. Edit: And honestly you think 1,400 people are going to be trying to sniff the WiFi from within the Super Dome?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I'm guessing the number will be closer to 2 than 2%. What is the overlap of "people with enough money and interest to go to the super bowl", and "people who know how to sniff open wifi, and actually bother to", and "people who would bother to at this event"? I mean, I know how to sniff wifi, putting me I suspect in a already small portion of the general population. Even so, I haven't bothered in years; I have better things to do. Sure, some people may sit in coffee shops and do it for monetary gain, but will those people be buying superbowl tickets?
- mcpherrinm 14y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if 2% of the crowd at DEFCON was sniffing the wifi at any point. But at the Superbowl? People don't bring laptops to the superbowl.

diminoten 14y ago

I feel like 30,000 concurrent users is woefully underestimated. The article says "During the Super Bowl, the network will be able to handle up to 30,000 simultaneous connections, which should be enough." but I wonder where that estimate came from. I would double that, in my estimates, given the kinds of people even capable of securing Super Bowl tickets. W're not talking about a fair sample of the US population here, we're talking about 80k at-least middle class fans, which I'd imagine raises the likelihood of a wireless-capable device being in their pockets significantly. Again from the article: "As long as 100 percent of the people in there don't take out their cellular device and switch it to the Wi-Fi network, it should be fine." Given the fact that it's an open network, why do these people even need to take out their device at all? Many phone will jump onto an open network if at all possible, won't they? I'd be interested in a post-mortem after the event to determine the effectiveness of the Wi-Fi plan.

anigbrowl 14y ago
I think the majority of people will be absorbed in the game and entertainment. When I go to a sports game it has to be a poor match for me to start laying with my phone. I might check it while waiting in line for a hot dog or something, but the number of people wandering around << the number of people in their seats.
- TsiCClawOfLight 14y ago
  what game? you mean the downtime between the rare actions? I enjoy football, but the way it's monetized by the NFL is simply sickening.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    True, but irrelevant.
- klinquist 14y ago
  You will essentially have zero cell coverage in the stadium.. iphone / imessage users can use the wifi to send/receive texts... "hey need another beer?"

ImprovedSilence 14y ago

Better not use that microwave in your luxury box, the Mercedes-benz-superdome-FCC will be on your ass in a hot second.....

rdtsc 14y ago

Is the issue interference or they want to stop people taking pictures and sending them or offering free hot spots?

mikestew 14y ago
They don't want some rogue devices screwing it up for everyone else. The stadium is offering free WiFi, so there's no attempt to block communications and there is no need for kind souls to offer free WiFi.

mprovost 14y ago

Is this even legal? Aren't the frequencies used by wi-fi explicitly set up to be unregulated by the FCC? Can a private company force you to turn off a device legally operating on those frequencies?

mikestew 14y ago
They don't make you turn off anything. You simply can't bring it in. Just like you can't bring in your own food or drink. The FCC and radio spectrum legalities don't enter into it.

Benferhat 14y ago

One person with WifiKill[0] is going to spoil it for everyone. [0] http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1282900 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1282900

amalag 14y ago
They claim to have spectral analysis solutions. Does that mean they are going to zero in on the offenders? It is probably technically possible.
- haakon666 14y ago
  It's a Cisco setup so they will be using their CleanAir feature to identify and triangulate sources of interference. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns1070/index.html http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns1070/index.html

StevenXC 14y ago

> Well, maybe not. The NFL manages to spread 60 minutes of clock time across three hours in a typical game. What with time running off the clock between plays and the typical play lasting about four seconds, an average game ends up with only 11 minutes of action. Setting aside the fact that this entire paragraph was irrelevant to the point of the article, it always irritates me as a (college) football fan when people cite this statistic. There are far more than 60 minutes of "action" from kickoff to the final play. Most of American football is actually about strategy - if you're completely ignoring what happens between when the play is whistled dead and when the ball is snapped next, you're going to be very confused, and I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't enjoy it. But we can all agree that TV timeouts suck when you're in the stadium.

trout 14y ago

For the curious, this is a small scale map of what they'll be viewing: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps5755/ps6301/ps6386/images/0900aecd806364db_null_null_null_05_03_05-3.jpg http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps5755/p... I would be really curious to what the wireless spectrum looks like at an event like that. Most football fans won't bring more than a phone, but with 80,000 people there will be some outliers. Maybe someone decides to bring a walkie talkie set that works over the 2.4 Ghz band, lots of people with bluetooth headsets, or other odd bluetooth devices. Wireless cameras can ruin Wifi on the same bands. Monitoring 'rogue' devices is actually a requirement of all parts of a business that handle credit card transactions (PCI). It's to prevent card card data from leaking out of a planted wireless device (small device plugged into bag of a register/pc, etc). That's one of the main drivers for this technology existing beyond anything else.