Re: [PATCH 1/3] wifi: Introduce PassiveWiFiScan option

[Patrik Flykt]

On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 14:56 +0300, Pasi Sjöholm wrote:
> > If you use PassiveWiFiScan only here, then you are still using
> > active scan for auto-connection - so still leaking SSIDs - when not
> > connected.
> 
> Yes, for hidden networks but not for anything else.

This isn't then a very good solution. So if the point is not to leak all
known SSIDs all the time while scanning, that needs to be addressed for
all scans. I'd still expect hidden networks to be scanned if they did
not turn up in the passive WiFi scan. Else there is a subset of networks
that can be connected only once; having the user to notice the
relationship between full privacy and hidden WiFi networks will fail
very reliably...

So the idea is not to reveal the WiFi networks used by doing active
scans where active scans are not strictly necessary? By doing active
scan only for known hidden networks, yes, the device reveals itself -
but that is the cost of using hidden networks, right?


Cheers,

Patrik

___
connman mailing list
connman@connman.net
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman

Re: [PATCH 1/3] wifi: Introduce PassiveWiFiScan option

[Pasi Sjöholm]

Hi Tomasz,

>> -} else if (wifi->connected) { +} else if
>> (wifi->connected || connman_setting_get_bool("PassiveWiFiScan"))
>> { g_supplicant_free_scan_params(scan_params); return
>> wifi_scan_simple(device);
> 
> If you use PassiveWiFiScan only here, then you are still using
> active scan for auto-connection - so still leaking SSIDs - when not
> connected.

Yes, for hidden networks but not for anything else.

> Is this a wanted behavior? Because then PassiveWiFiScan is
> semantically wrong as it does not really completely avoid active
> scan.

Well, I would say yes because the hidden networks are just
fundamentally broken. I can rename PassiveWifiScan into something else.

Br,
Pasi
___
connman mailing list
connman@connman.net
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman

Re: [PATCH 1/3] wifi: Introduce PassiveWiFiScan option

[Tomasz Bursztyka]

Hi Pasi,


-   } else if (wifi->connected) {
+   } else if (wifi->connected || 
connman_setting_get_bool("PassiveWiFiScan")) {
g_supplicant_free_scan_params(scan_params);
return wifi_scan_simple(device);


If you use PassiveWiFiScan only here, then you are still using active 
scan for auto-connection

- so still leaking SSIDs - when not connected.

Is this a wanted behavior? Because then PassiveWiFiScan is semantically 
wrong as it does

not really completely avoid active scan.

Tomasz
___
connman mailing list
connman@connman.net
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman

[PATCH 1/3] wifi: Introduce PassiveWiFiScan option

[pasi . sjoholm]

From: Pasi Sjöholm 

Makes it possible to only do passive scanning so that the
SSIDs are not revealed during the scans.
---
 plugins/wifi.c |  2 +-
 src/main.c | 15 +++
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/plugins/wifi.c b/plugins/wifi.c
index 42dd407..0fecee7 100644
--- a/plugins/wifi.c
+++ b/plugins/wifi.c
@@ -1820,7 +1820,7 @@ static int wifi_scan(enum connman_service_type type,
 
return 0;
}
-   } else if (wifi->connected) {
+   } else if (wifi->connected || 
connman_setting_get_bool("PassiveWiFiScan")) {
g_supplicant_free_scan_params(scan_params);
return wifi_scan_simple(device);
} else {
diff --git a/src/main.c b/src/main.c
index 1c17991..21c6121 100644
--- a/src/main.c
+++ b/src/main.c
@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ static struct {
bool single_tech;
char **tethering_technologies;
bool persistent_tethering_mode;
+   bool passive_wifi_scan;
 } connman_settings  = {
.bg_scan = true,
.pref_timeservers = NULL,
@@ -86,6 +87,7 @@ static struct {
.single_tech = false,
.tethering_technologies = NULL,
.persistent_tethering_mode = false,
+   .passive_wifi_scan = false,
 };
 
 #define CONF_BG_SCAN"BackgroundScanning"
@@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ static struct {
 #define CONF_SINGLE_TECH"SingleConnectedTechnology"
 #define CONF_TETHERING_TECHNOLOGIES  "TetheringTechnologies"
 #define CONF_PERSISTENT_TETHERING_MODE  "PersistentTetheringMode"
+#define CONF_PASSIVE_WIFI_SCAN "PassiveWiFiScan"
 
 static const char *supported_options[] = {
CONF_BG_SCAN,
@@ -114,6 +117,7 @@ static const char *supported_options[] = {
CONF_SINGLE_TECH,
CONF_TETHERING_TECHNOLOGIES,
CONF_PERSISTENT_TETHERING_MODE,
+   CONF_PASSIVE_WIFI_SCAN,
NULL
 };
 
@@ -354,6 +358,14 @@ static void parse_config(GKeyFile *config)
connman_settings.persistent_tethering_mode = boolean;
 
g_clear_error(&error);
+
+   boolean = __connman_config_get_bool(config, "General",
+   CONF_PASSIVE_WIFI_SCAN,
+   &error);
+   if (!error)
+   connman_settings.passive_wifi_scan = boolean;
+
+   g_clear_error(&error);
 }
 
 static int config_init(const char *file)
@@ -528,6 +540,9 @@ bool connman_setting_get_bool(const char *key)
if (g_str_equal(key, CONF_PERSISTENT_TETHERING_MODE))
return connman_settings.persistent_tethering_mode;
 
+   if (g_str_equal(key, CONF_PASSIVE_WIFI_SCAN))
+   return connman_settings.passive_wifi_scan;
+
return false;
 }
 
-- 
2.1.0

___
connman mailing list
connman@connman.net
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman