[174873] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Fri Oct 3 22:28:55 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20141004022522.GB1424@bamboo.slabnet.com>
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 22:27:06 -0400
To: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>,Michael Van Norman <mvn@ucla.edu>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Except that this is the difference between what happens at a Marriott and what would happen at a business that was running rogue AP detection. In the business the portable AP would be trying to look like the network that the company operated so as to siphon off legitimate users. In a hotel the portable AP would be trying to create a different, separate network. And so your thesis does not hold.
I think this is the distinction we need. Because it's clear that the business thing should be able to happen and the hotel thing should
On October 3, 2014 10:25:22 PM EDT, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman <mvn@ucla.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>IANAL, but I believe they are. State laws may also apply (e.g.
>California
>>Code - Section 502). In California, it is illegal to "knowingly and
>>without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer
>services
>>or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized
>user
>>of a computer, computer system, or computer network." Blocking access
>to
>>somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.
>
>My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the
>blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs
>are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in
>contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.
>
>>
>>/Mike
>>
>>
>
>--
>Hugo
>
>>On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, "Mike Hale" <eyeronic.design@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various
>>>vendors are illegal if used in the US?
>>>
>>>On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and
>carries no
>>>>> authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be
>>>>> provided.
>>>>
>>>> What's the code for E_GREEDY?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -- jra
>>>> --
>>>> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
>>>>jra@baylink.com
>>>> Designer The Things I Think
>>>>RFC 2100
>>>> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000
>Land
>>>>Rover DII
>>>> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1
>727
>>>>647 1274
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
>>
>>
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
