DIY Bluetooth Headset And Other Inventions

NETHED writes "Circuit Cellar has an blurb about a guy who obviously got sick of waiting for a cheap solution to the BlueTooth cellphone headset. So in true geek tradition, he rolled his own. Here is the description of the toy (which looks bulky as-is, but could be fixed w/ some refining). It actually didn't win any prizes in the PSoC contest, but you have to admit, its pretty cool. There are other honorable mentions like a poor man's O-scope to something that seems to attach to a moth and check its muscle movements. Neat and nerdy stuff for the circuit etching crowd."

Comments

That's not really the idea

[Sycraft-fu]

They don't have a long range or anything. The thing is there are often times when you want to be able to use our phone, but not be holding it to your head. Driving comes to mind. Hence, a headset. Now it's near enough that wires work, however they are not real conveinent. Hence, a wireless headset. Yes, it's not real necessary and is kind of a toy, but hey, we like toys.

Re:Why not simple RF?

[photon317]

I can't speak to specifics, I haven't started digging around BlueTooth yet, but don't be so quick to deny it's hackability based on the market drivel you've repeated. 802.11X protocols also had various mentioned feautures to make them secure - and as long as everyone just runs their factory cards/drivers/software/settings, it's secure. But if your security relies on someone not re-writing the software, you're SOL. Check out http://802.11ninja.net, where some freinds of mine have some software the defeats just about everything that 802.11X offers security-wise. With that software and the right card, you can DoS a base station, join a supposedly "secure" network, launch a man-in-the-middle attack (you become the base station to the network's users), and yes, even recover the weak crappy keys that the protocol uses for encryption and do al the same irregardless of that encryption.

So again, the question is not what market drivel buzzwords someone said about the technology - technically if 802.11 had implemented all their buzzwords correctly they would be secure too - it's about whether they really did it *right*, or they left it poorly implemented and vulnerable. So far history is on the vulnerable side.