Evening. > On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Toni Heinonen wrote: > > > In the US and Europe, Bluetooth uses frequencies 2.400 MHz > to 2.483,5 > > MHz, with 79 different bands to hop on, each 80 MHz wide or > sometimes > > more. Seeing as you would not try to synchronize your > jammer with the > > I suspect you mean 2.4000 GHz to 2.4835 GHz. > > That's a total of 83.5 Mhz of bandwidth. I fail to see how > you can get 79 > *different* bands each 80 MHz wide in an 83.5 MHz space. Ehh, sorry. One megahertz in between, and 79 bands, as said. > > hop sequence, do you think it would really be capable of > jamming that > > whole band? After all, even a square wave won't produce > that much of a > > disturbance to the neighbouring bands. I mean, of course you could > > Blotting out a signal is always easier than detecting it. > Generating 83.5 > Mhz of noise at 2.4 GHz isn't hard at all. Okay. > > Of course, the whole idea is that the protective safeguards for a > > system do not cost more than the protected assets. Seeing as how a > > Bluetooth chip is supposed to cost 5$ (of course not yet, > but probably > > so after mass production), would it really be possible to build a > > jamming device of this magnitude for 10$ (the cost of a two-machine > > Bluetooth network)? > > Would it really be possible to build a Bluetooth network for > $10? I'll bet > teleware.fi will never bill $10 for building one. I wonder what you mean. Are you talking about a network infrastructure? After all, isn't the idea of Bluetooth that you have two devices, such as a laptop and a mobile phone, that are interconnected with Bluetooth transceivers instead of, say, a serial cable? And, being an ad-hoc wireless network, it doesn't require base infrastructure. Instead, if you join your Bluetooth devices to some fixed network, e.g. Ethernet, you will have some sort of a gateway device (a router, a laptop computer) that has both Ethernet connectivity and a Bluetooth transceiver. So in essence, you won't have to get new network elements into your existing Ethernet network. How could I "sell a Bluetooth network"? Are you talking about the routers and other gateways that interjoin an ad-hoc Bluetooth network into a company's fixed network? And, as I stated in my previous post, my company has no financial interest in WLAN installations or the like. > While not a law of nature, it has been consistently demonstrated that > wireless networks cost more than the vendor claimed and > aren't as reliable > as the vendor claimed. Yes, indeed so. But with Bluetooth, aren't we talking simply about the transceivers and perhaps firmware/software? > Bluetooth is the 'latest and greatest' in a long line of > solutions that > have consistently failed to live up to their claims. > > Here's a great example; > > Motorola sold a communications system to my state, making the > same claims > you make for bluetooth. It carries Police, Fire, EMS and > government voice > and data traffic. It is used for dispatching, Mobile Data > Terminals and > control of MOSCAD devices such as traffic lights. But that doesn't sound anything like Bluetooth. Bluetooth is meant for personal area networks, whereas the network you describe is a wide area mobile phone network with data capabilities. > It was finished several years late, 200% over budget, and has never > achieved more than 95% reliability. > > Worse, it would cost about $100 to disable this multi-million dollar > system. > > It uses a small number of frequencies in the 800Mhz band for digital > frequency hopping. The frequencies are fixed, and the PSN is > so weak you > can break it in realtime. Indeed. I assume the technology was proprietary? When it comes to Bluetooth, I think the cipher and underlying encryption infrastructure is sound (as sound as WLANs were before they were deployed :) TONI HEINONEN, CISSP TELEWARE OY Telephone +358 (9) 3434 9123 * Fax +358 (9) 3431 321 Wireless +358 40 836 1815 Kauppakartanonkatu 7, 00930 Helsinki, Finland toni.heinonenat_private * www.teleware.fi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Mar 25 2002 - 12:53:32 PST