4 ms·
Okay, given that the security angle is a subterfuge, but let's say you run a hotel with a network named "RyansExorbitantWifi" and I set up a WAP named "RyanWifi
by juliangregorian 12y ago
Okay, given that the security angle is a subterfuge, but let's say you run a hotel with a network named "RyansExorbitantWifi" and I set up a WAP named "RyanWifi-Free". I think we both know it's gonna generate some interest. Then I can serve them fake versions of Facebook, Google, and their bank's login pages, which is a lot wider of an attack vector than trying to sidejack via packet sniffing.
- ryan-c 12y agoEnumerating some possibilities, here are things the hotel can do: * Deauth jam nothing * Deauth jam "evil twin" access points only * Deauth jam above plus access points "similar" to the official wifi (have fun trying to prevent homoglyph attacks) * Deauth jam all unofficial unencrypted access points (preventing an attack from monitoring probe requests and spinning up matching fake APs on the fly) perhaps with a whitelist of "known" nearby wireless networks to leave alone * Deauth jam all unofficial WiFi (what they want to do) There's not really much difference from a security standpoint between those last two, though I suppose someone could set up an encrypted rouge network like "FreeWifi - password is swordfish" and/or make flyers for their evil network. Basically, I could empathize with them arguing to jam any open wireless networks, but jamming encrypted wireless networks in the name of security is a major stretch.