full-disclosure - WiFi question

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7bc1b1f041117161865698b6d@mail.gmail.com>
From: uberguidoz at gmail.com (GuidoZ)
Subject: WiFi question

A very good point indeed Mark; one that shouldn't be dismissed even
WITH common SSIDs. Other technology clashing with WiFi certainly isn't
new... in fact it getting worse!

Besides motion sensors, also look for wireless phones, security
systems (like ADT's window/door systems - they use wireless to
communicate with some systems), things like that. With the amount of
wireless technology out there, it's becoming less and less common to
find unaffected WiFi.

--
Peace. ~G


On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:41:44 -0500, Lachniet, Mark
<mlachniet@...uoianet.com> wrote:
> Could also be RF interference.  One of my coworkers tracked down a
> particularly interesting problem with motion sensor lights.  Turns out
> the motion sensors worked at the 240mhz range, which has resonance at
> 2.4ghz, or something like that.  Hence every time the motion sensor
> worked, it would spew what the wardriving (site survey) apps thought was
> a zillion different access points with widely varying MAC addresses.  I
> would have though it was a FAKEAP program also.  I would assume the same
> could happen with other interference.  Having a common SSID would seem
> to indicate this is not the problem, but just thought I'd mention it.
> 
> Mark Lachniet
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: KF_lists [mailto:kf_lists@...netops.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 10:21 AM
> > To: Colin.Scott@...lc.com
> > Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] WiFi question
> >
> > fake ap....
> > http://bsdvault.net/bsdfap.txt
> > http://www.blackalchemy.to/project/fakeap/
> > -KF
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Colin.Scott@...lc.com wrote:
> > > List,
> > >
> > > I'm an expert in nothing so when I saw this I had to ask,
> > as Im sure
> > > theres someone out there that is a WiFi expert.
> > >
> > > Google has found no answer so here goes.
> > >
> > > Last night we saw a new access point appear. No problems
> > its an ad-hoc
> > > network so its someone's machine with XP on configured for
> > their home
> > > W-LAN probably.  Running Netstumbler shows more on it though.
> > >
> > > You get 2 Access Points showing this ESSID for a few
> > seconds. Then you
> > > get a 3rd, then a 4rth. Then the first two drop off, this
> > repeats forever.
> > > Always using a different MAC address when a new AP appears. The APs
> > > are all WEP enabled (which I cant crack cos I dont have the
> > savvy or
> > > the tools :) ) and this goes on forever.
> > >
> > > The MACs are all from different pools (i.e. assigned to different
> > > manufacturers) so the only conclusion is that they are all
> > spoofed MACs.
> > >
> > > I have walked around the office and as far as I can tell its coming
> > > from this office (the IT dept), basing that assumption on
> > signal strength.
> > >
> > > Anyone seen any tools that do this?   I would love a little
> > hand-held
> > > gadget that would help me find it (like the scanner in Alien!)
> > >
> > > Answers on a post card :)
> > >
> > > Colin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > **********************************************************************
> > > ****************
> > >
> > > This e-mail is confidential and may contain privileged
> > information.
> > > If you are not the addressee or if you have received the e-mail in
> > > error, it may be unlawful for you to read, copy,
> > distribute, disclose
> > > or otherwise use the information which it contains.  Under these
> > > circumstances, please notify us immediately by returning
> > this mail to
> > > 'mailerror@...lc.com' and deleting this e-mail from your system.
> > >
> > > Any views expressed by an individual within this e-mail do not
> > > necessarily reflect the views of Cadbury Schweppes Plc or its
> > > subsidiaries.  Cadbury Schweppes Plc will not be bound by any
> > > agreement entered into as a result of this email, unless
> > its intention is clearly evidenced in the body of the email.
> > > Whilst we have taken reasonable steps to ensure that this
> > e-mail and
> > > attachments are free from viruses, recipients are advised
> > to subject
> > > this mail to their own virus checking, in keeping with good
> > computing
> > > practice. Please note that email received by Cadbury
> > Schweppes Plc or
> > > its subsidiaries may be monitored in accordance with the
> > prevailing law in the United Kingdom.
> > >
> > >
> > **********************************************************************
> > > ****************
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>