I have a few defense contractor stories of my own. Like at Lawrence
Livermore where they had to put sandwich boards with a rotating beacon
in the hallway and other areas where I needed to walk through. Oh dear;
I am unclean!
bp
On 10/3/2014 12:33 PM, Chuck McCown via Af 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]
*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
