Prev: FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
Next: Netgear - XE103 vs XET1001 - what's different
From: John Navas on 12 Feb 2010 11:26
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:23:00 +0000, Bob <bob(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in
<LJ6dndEYN_n5HejWnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d(a)bt.com>:

>On 12/02/2010 16:15, John Navas wrote:
>
>> So what? It's misuse of a term of art.
>>
>Twaddle
>In no way does it engage my senses or emotions.

Your problem, not mine.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
From: fufu on 12 Feb 2010 14:33
Bob <bob(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:icednYGIfrEjrujWnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)bt.com:

> Meraki have produced a browser based sniffer
> <http://meraki.com/tools/stumbler/>
>
> Frequently Asked Questions
>
> Q: What is the WiFi Stumbler?
>
> A: The WiFi Stumbler is a browser-based wireless scanner tool
that
> detects 802.11 wireless networks and displays useful information
about
> the networks in an easily searchable, intuitive web interface.
WiFi
> Stumbler can be used to optimize wireless network coverage,
> troubleshoot performance issues, detect rogue APs and perform
basic
> pre-deployment site surveys.
>
> Q: Can I use WiFI Stumbler when I am not connected to the
Internet?
>
> A: If your browser supports offline mode (currently only
Firefox),
> then it can load WiFi Stumbler from its offline cache. This means
that
> WiFi Stumbler will work in these browsers even when you are not
> connected to the Internet, as long as your wireless card is
enabled.
> Simply visit the Stumbler page using Firefox once you are
connected to
> the Internet. The site will ask for permission to use offline
storage.
> Grant this permission, bookmark the page and you can revisit
whenever
> you need to use WiFi Stumbler.
>
> Q: How does the WiFi Stumbler work?
>
> A: WiFi Stumbler captures data about nearby wireless networks
from
> your computer's wireless card and displays it as a web page. It
can
> even work when you are not connected to the Internet if your
browser
> supports offline mode (currently Firefox only).
>
> Q: Why is Stumbler a web-based tool instead of standalone,
> downloadable software?
>
> A: By running in a browser, there is no need to download
software to
> your computer. This makes it very easy to load and use since no
> software installation is required. It also can run on either a PC
or
> Mac, unlike most downloadable software applications. In addition,
as
> we will be continually adding new features to Stumbler, you will
> automatically get the latest version of the tool each time you
reload
> the page.
>
> Q: The WiFi Stumbler doesn't load on my computer/in my browser.
Why
> not?
>
> A: WiFi Stumbler requires Java support and does not currently
> support
> Linux. If your browser does not support Java or you are running
Linux
> and you try to load WiFi Stumbler, you will receive an error
message
> in your browser window. Currently, Google Chrome for Mac does not
> support Java so it will not run WiFi Stumbler. WiFi Stumbler is
also
> currently a beta stage tool; if you encounter other problems
getting
> Stumbler to load, please let us know using the Make a Wish box at
the
> bottom of the page.
>

Seems to me using this would risk privacy invasion on the part of
those "sniffing" your data. Certainly could not use with anything
that might contain a transmitted password or other personal data.
Guess I really do not understand just what the usefulness of this
would be other than trying to hack unauthorized connections. Maybe
to troubleshoot local networks.
From: John Navas on 12 Feb 2010 14:36
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:33:38 +0000 (UTC), fufu
<fufu(a)Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote in
<45de8120d348be70e7b3afbc11340c70(a)tioat.net>:

>Bob <bob(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in
>news:icednYGIfrEjrujWnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)bt.com:

>Seems to me using this would risk privacy invasion on the part of
>those "sniffing" your data. Certainly could not use with anything
>that might contain a transmitted password or other personal data.
>Guess I really do not understand just what the usefulness of this
>would be other than trying to hack unauthorized connections. Maybe
>to troubleshoot local networks.

There's no privacy issue. It's a Site Survey tool. See
<http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Why_and_How_to_do_a_Site_Survey>

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
From: Jeff Liebermann on 12 Feb 2010 20:33
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:33:38 +0000 (UTC), fufu
<fufu(a)Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>Seems to me using this would risk privacy invasion on the part of
>those "sniffing" your data.

Sniffing is much like looking in a phone directory for someones
address. Just because you know where they live, doesn't magically
give you access to what's inside their house. It's the same with
wireless. The MAC addresses are all send in the clear and not
encrypted. That's like your address and is generally considered
public information. What's not available are the constents of the
encrypted data packets, which contain all kinds of interesting
information that might result in a privacy leak. As long as the
encryption is functional and unbroken, there's no privacy invasion
possible.

>Certainly could not use with anything
>that might contain a transmitted password or other personal data.

Actually, I've found two wireless lans that also used the SSID as
their WPA password. I found one and explained to the semi-intoxicated
owner what was happening. He claimed he understood, but it's still
unchanged about 6 months later. Oh well.

>Guess I really do not understand just what the usefulness of this
>would be other than trying to hack unauthorized connections. Maybe
>to troubleshoot local networks.

1. Check of interference on specific channels. There are only 3
non-overlapping channels (1, 8, 11). The trick is to find a channel
that's NOT being used for your LAN. If not, start thinking about
5.7Ghz. 802.11a.
2. Track down the source of Wi-Fi interference.
3. Identify users of junk wireless routers and try to sell them
something better. I've tried this a few times with mixed results.
4. Collect traffic statistics (error rate, retransmissions, etc).
5. Find the dingbat with the new MIMO router that's hogging the
entire 2.4GHz band with a 40Mhz wide HD video feed so that he doesn't
have to run an HDMI or ethernet cable 10 ft across his living room.
I've already given away one ethernet cable to get one of these off the
air.
6. Identify potential municipal Wi-Fi or mesh network nodes for
internet access.
7. Find the idiot with the 1 watt power amplifier trying to drill
through 5 brick walls to his router.
8. Whatever else I forgot.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: me here on 12 Feb 2010 21:00
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:33:38 +0000 (UTC), fufu
> <fufu(a)Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Seems to me using this would risk privacy invasion on the part of
> > those "sniffing" your data.
>
> Sniffing is much like looking in a phone directory for someones
> address. Just because you know where they live, doesn't magically
> give you access to what's inside their house. It's the same with
> wireless. The MAC addresses are all send in the clear and not
> encrypted. That's like your address and is generally considered
> public information. What's not available are the constents of the
> encrypted data packets, which contain all kinds of interesting
> information that might result in a privacy leak. As long as the
> encryption is functional and unbroken, there's no privacy invasion
> possible.
>
> > Certainly could not use with anything
> > that might contain a transmitted password or other personal data.
>
> Actually, I've found two wireless lans that also used the SSID as
> their WPA password. I found one and explained to the semi-intoxicated
> owner what was happening. He claimed he understood, but it's still
> unchanged about 6 months later. Oh well.
>
> > Guess I really do not understand just what the usefulness of this
> > would be other than trying to hack unauthorized connections. Maybe
> > to troubleshoot local networks.
>
> 1. Check of interference on specific channels. There are only 3
> non-overlapping channels (1, 8, 11). The trick is to find a channel
> that's NOT being used for your LAN. If not, start thinking about
> 5.7Ghz. 802.11a.
> 2. Track down the source of Wi-Fi interference.
> 3. Identify users of junk wireless routers and try to sell them
> something better. I've tried this a few times with mixed results.
> 4. Collect traffic statistics (error rate, retransmissions, etc).
> 5. Find the dingbat with the new MIMO router that's hogging the
> entire 2.4GHz band with a 40Mhz wide HD video feed so that he doesn't
> have to run an HDMI or ethernet cable 10 ft across his living room.
> I've already given away one ethernet cable to get one of these off the
> air.
> 6. Identify potential municipal Wi-Fi or mesh network nodes for
> internet access.
> 7. Find the idiot with the 1 watt power amplifier trying to drill
> through 5 brick walls to his router.
> 8. Whatever else I forgot.

This java script really only displays the same information as the wifi
adapter does when set to scan - it's a bit of a con really - and
certainly no more of a privacy issue than the basic adapter software.

Not much to get excited about.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
Next: Netgear - XE103 vs XET1001 - what's different