Sorry to jump into the middle of this and I don't have anything to offer that is even close to the technical level you guys are talking about but for 802.11a/b networks why not just configure an access point with the same SSID and channel, plant a big ole' antenna (tm) on it and simply over power the real AP? Not an ongoing DoS but a pretty effictive short term one I would think. ----- Original Message ----- From: "J Edgar Hoover" <zorchat_private> To: "Toni Heinonen" <Toni.Heinonenat_private> Cc: "Meritt James" <meritt_jamesat_private>; <vuln-devat_private> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:02 AM Subject: RE: Wireless device vulnerability? > 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. > > > 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. > > > build a jammer like that, but wouldn't it cost too much? I mean, I see > > your point: > > Less than $10. > > > > It will always be cheaper to DoS a wireless network than it > > > is to build > > > it. > > > > Of course, the whole idea is that the protective safeguards for a > > system do not cost more than the protected assets. Seeing as how a > > Bluetooth chip is supposed to cost 5$ (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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > If you're laughing now, sell a similarly scaled Bluetooth solution. By the > time it is deployed, it will in perspective be as laughable as motorola's > solution. > > > Additionally, you did not comment on my analysis of WLAN/UMTS > > transmission a la DSSS. Do you have any ideas there? > > Plenty. Send specs, a prototype and a check. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Mar 25 2002 - 14:57:40 PST