7 ms·
What I find interesting is this isn't jamming of the radio signal, but protocol-level interference by sending deauthentication packets. I find it a little conce
by kens 12y ago
What I find interesting is this isn't jamming of the radio signal, but protocol-level interference by sending deauthentication packets. I find it a little concerning that the law is interpreted this way since it could give the FCC a very broad jurisdiction.
More on the law: http://www.fcc.gov/jammers http://www.fcc.gov/jammers
More on deauthentication packet jamming: http://hackaday.com/2011/10/04/wifi-jamming-via-deauthentication-packets/ http://hackaday.com/2011/10/04/wifi-jamming-via-deauthentica...
- Retric 12y agoIt's still a broadcast designed to create interference.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- gizmo686 12y agoThe FCC is responsible for allocating what can be broadcast on any given frequency. It is well within their jurisdiction to say that such broadcasts must comply with standard protocol X plus additional restrictions.
- Dylan16807 12y agoIn my mind impersonation/forgery is worse than jamming.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- blhack 12y agoIf you look on the back of your wifi gear, you'll likely see a stamp that says something to the effect of: "This device complies with FCC part 15 and will not cause harmful interference". The argument could be made that by using the device to send lots of deauth packets, that Marriott had modified the device beyond it's original scope, and was now using it to cause harmful interference (to other wifi devices).
- jnevill 12y agoThat is pretty damning. Blocking wifi signal is one thing, fraudulantly deauthing is like... fuck these people.
- mikeash 12y agoIf you or I got caught doing it to their systems, we'd probably go to jail. But when they do it to us, they get fined a few days' profits. Lovely double standard.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 12y agoYou're accusing them of a double standard based on the supposition that they would have a double standard?
- mikeash 12y agoBased on a long history of putting people in jail for similar offenses.
- stickfigure 12y agoYou can't put a corporation in jail.
- mikeash 12y agoFirst of all, why not? If a corporation does something that would be worthy of prison in an individual, shut them down for a period of time as punishment. Second, even if you accept that, you could at least fine them an amount that will cause harm, rather than an amount they'll barely notice.
- stickfigure 12y ago
- cddotdotslash 12y agoThis is really interesting - the college I went to used this kind of technology to prevent students from spinning up rogue hotspots. In fact, it is a pretty common practice. Anyone know if this law extends to that use case or if Marriot was doing something different?
- iancarroll 12y agoNo - that is blatantly illegal.
- cddotdotslash 12y agoThis is a Cisco technology: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless-mobility/wireless-lan-wlan/70987-rogue-detect.html http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless-mobility/... Something tells me there is more to this story.
- iancarroll 12y agoThat seems to cut off APs connected to a wired Cisco network - that's perfectly legal, you can terminate any device you want from your network.
- lmz 12y ago> Once a rogue client is detected on the wired network, the network administrator is able to contain both the rogue AP and the rogue clients. This can be achieved because 802.11 de-authentication packets are sent to clients that are associated to rogue APs so that the threat that such a hole creates is mitigated. Looks like the Cisco AP sends these deauthentication packets over wireless, it doesn't cut off the rogue AP from the network by filtering it or disabling a switch port. The rogue AP is certainly bridged to your network, but is the association between the clients and the rogue AP part of your network?
- iancarroll 12y ago
- burtonator 12y agoFascinating... wouldn't this be illegal? It falls into laws regarding hacking and network disruption. They're joining another network, and interfering with its activity. If the reverse was happening, say a hacker was going through and deauthentication jamming THEIR network you can bet they would call the FBI.
- sliverstorm 12y agoThe FCC governs communications, not just radio waves. We just happen to be most familiar with them in the context of radio.
- dedward 12y agoThere really isn't a slippery slope argument to be made.. they already have that power. If they determine you are deliberately interfering with lawful use of the airwaves, it doesn't matter how you are doing it.