5 ms·

This 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 com

This 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 ago
No - that is blatantly illegal.
- cddotdotslash 12y ago
  This 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 ago
    That 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
        That doesn't look good. It is mentioned near the start about potential issues: > rogue containment usually introduces legal issues that can put the infrastructure provider in an uncomfortable position if left to operate automatically. The FCC also says selling these things is illegal: > Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment There might be a legal workaround in the case of unauthorized devices, as I doubt Cisco's legal team would allow such a feature if there was not something to base it off of. It is concerning though...
superuser2 12y ago
Your college is mitigating what it considers an abuse of its network. Mariott is, in effect, preventing people from using the cellular service they pay (a carrier) for. Except, instead of attacking the cellular part, they're attacking the WiFi part. But, in effect, it's very close to jamming cell phone calls.

iancarroll 12y ago

No - that is blatantly illegal.

cddotdotslash 12y ago
This 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 ago
  That 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
      That doesn't look good. It is mentioned near the start about potential issues: > rogue containment usually introduces legal issues that can put the infrastructure provider in an uncomfortable position if left to operate automatically. The FCC also says selling these things is illegal: > Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment There might be a legal workaround in the case of unauthorized devices, as I doubt Cisco's legal team would allow such a feature if there was not something to base it off of. It is concerning though...

superuser2 12y ago

Your college is mitigating what it considers an abuse of its network. Mariott is, in effect, preventing people from using the cellular service they pay (a carrier) for. Except, instead of attacking the cellular part, they're attacking the WiFi part. But, in effect, it's very close to jamming cell phone calls.