even further, in the example of the defence contractor's facility...
plans for the JSF.
at minimum:
a) you would never have the plans outside of a SCIF
b) no outside equipment or wireless equipment would be allowed inside
the SCIF
c) the SCIF would be TEMPEST rated and certified
d) people who had not gone through a full security clearance process
would not be permitted inside the SCIF
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Chuck McCown via Af <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I am guessing that if someone was going to steal secrets from a
defense contractor, they would be more sneaky than that. I have
been in some DOD contractors’ plants where you checked your cell
phone at the front door and you did not take even a jump drive to
or from home. Each workstation was connected via fiber. None of
them had USB or ethernet ports. Keyboard and mouse were hard
wired to the box.
And they all had to be turned off before guys like me got to enter
the room. In one plant, I needed to find a software bug that was
preventing my airborne PBX from connecting to their satellite
transceiver. I had to send my computer to them a week in advance
for them to examine before I arrived. Then I could work on my own
computer and compiler while in the lab. But I didn’t get to take
anything home with me. The examined my computer a second time and
then sent my my computer with my altered source code.
(Actually, the fix was to their system. I was quite gleeful and
smug about that. But I did make some comments to my code. I
could have carried on without the latest version of my code).
*From:* Adam Moffett via Af <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 1:08 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600,000 TO RESOLVE
WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
I dunno. If Marriott was using it to force people to buy access
to their own wifi, then that's a bit shifty.
If Lockheed Martin wants to deauth rogue AP's so nobody plugs in a
wifi AP in the engineering department and the file server
containing plans for the Joint Strike Fighter is suddenly exposed
via wifi to somebody sitting in the parking lot, then I think
they're justified. I would say the same about any company trying
to protect trade secrets or other IP.
In the law firm example where they are hurting other tenants in
the building, that's probably not ok. The hypothetical law firm
should have to take steps to ensure that their wifi can't leave
their own area, or move their practice to a fenced in compound
like Lockheed.
This is not me telling you what's legal....just me saying what I
think is fair and reasonable. On the other hand, I guess if I was
Lockhead Martin, I'd probably just write the FCC the $600,000
check and then send a bill for it to the DOD.
So then those Enterprise security types are going to have to
stick to disabling Ethernet ports, I guess.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Chuck McCown via Af" mailto:[email protected]
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Friday, October 3, 2014 1:13:45 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO
RESOLVE WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
“No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause
interference to any radio communications of any station licensed
or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United
States Government”
Wifi is authorized. You don’t have the legal right to deauth any
AP sessions but your own. I would think the manufacturer of
equipment that makes this possible would be just as liable as
manufacturers of RF jammers.
*From:* Eric Kuhnke via Af <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 12:03 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600,000 TO RESOLVE
WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
Sounds like they're setting a precedent that a landlord can't
operate rogue AP detection/automatic deauth against tenants or
customers. Should still be fine in an enterprise environment.
Where it gets possibly weird is, let's say you're a major law
firm that is a tenant in a large office building. You occupy half
a floor. You operate your own enterprise wifi system and use
cisco's rogue AP deauth feature. The tenants in the other suite
(a totally separate business) on the other half of the same floor
notice that wifi tethering doesn't work on any of their phones,
and their pocket wifi hotspots don't work.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Hardy, Tim via Af <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
And the actual order has more detail
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1003/DA-14-1444A1.pdf
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Hardy, Tim via Af
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 1:46 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO RESOLVE
WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
More information about impermissible Wi-Fi blocking or
jamming practices is available at
www.fcc.gov/jammers <http://www.fcc.gov/jammers>. If you
would like additional information about Wi-Fi blocking, you
may email us at
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Adam
Moffett via Af
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 1:42 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO RESOLVE
WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
being a hotel might be the thing that made it a problem. If
an enterprise or hospital does it as a security measure, I
have trouble believing that's illegal.
Marriott are dicks, but here's an interesting question...
broad spectrum 2.4 or 5 GHz jammers are illegal, yeah.
But is an 802.11-compliant device issuing deauth requests
illegal, if part-15 devices are supposed to accept any
unwanted interference and there's no recourse?
Provided that the device issuing deauth requests is
operating within spec for EIRP, channel plan, etc.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Hardy, Tim via Af
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329743A1.docx
