Slashdot Mirror
Secure Wireless Through Infrared Antennas
oogamrm writes "Everyone knows the main problem with Wi-Fi: Security. It's relatively easy for intruders to sniff packets out of the air and even connect to the wireless net. While most wireless companies have responded by trying to beef up the encryption, the University of Warwick's engineering department has developed an optical antenna that operates in the infrared band. This means almost no energy leaking through walls, and simple filters to block it from exiting through windows. The antennas can be so well tuned that several networks can be co-located in the same physical space. The whole story is available at news.com.com."
This would have been great a while ago, but what I don't understand why its so difficult to have created truly secure wireless networks in the first place. I mean, come on guys, there's tons of public key cryptography stuff out there, I don't see why that wasn't used from zero day.
Granted, I'm not a wireless engineer, I just play one on slashdot, so I could very well be talking out my ass.
-SheWhoWalksWithToesLikeCobras Please enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...
I thought the great advantage of 802.11x was it *wasn't* on the infared spectrum like every wireless proticol prior.
Then again perhaps some people enjoy only having line of sight networking, to each his own.
I live in a giant bucket.
I already have to deal with my little brother standing directly in front of the IR receiver on the TV for the remote control. He's gonna have a field-day screwing with my quake ping rates!
Play the Stock Market Drinking Game
tcd004
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this require line of sight? Doesn't that limit the usefullness of a wireless network? I thought one of the benefits of wi-fi was that it went through wall and windows.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
As I'm sure anyone with infrared equipment will know, it dosen't travel around objects very well. So I can't see this being useful indoors.
Outdoors as a point-to-point link, it's a bit more useful. But may fail because of the same reason. A light rain or snow shower could probably block one of these links.
Since I installed my new infrared network, my damn TV keeps changing channels to 65,535
using System.Awesome;
This is SECURITY VIA OBSCURITY. Its worst than Microsoft's proposed ;HttpOnly cookie value. Not only does infrared have a miniscule amplitude comparable to that of dark mango light, it shares properties of microwaves in that it does not penetrate lead steel. This is in stark contrast to the ceramic flossings offered by MIT Inc.'s 802.11b/ALL wirefree standard. Wireless is well-known for eliminating some of the wires, hence the term "wires: less", and these microscopic wires can picked up by sophisticated nuclear wireless detection subsystems such as NetStumbler. Infrared is no exception to this rule. SECURITY VIA OBSCURITY DOES NOT WORK.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
Meanwhile, I've created a totally new form of network media that's MUCH faster and more secure than ANY WiFi to date. I call it the "Electron Antenna". It only transmits through copper. Here are some choice quotes from my upcoming press release:
The new antenna may have a favorable impact on the use of networks in corporate settings or for business transactions. Compared with radio frequencies, which pass right through walls, electron beams can be more tightly controlled.
"You make the network more secure because electrical energy is contained within plastic and doesn't leak out through the edges of the wires. You can equip the wires to contain electrical energy," said Subreality. "Also, you can create a tight beam between one point and another which doesn't diverge much in comparison to a radio frequency beam."
I'm a genius.
--Keepiru
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
So, yes, it may indeed be more secure, but is the enormous leap backward in available bandwidth really worth it? I for one would much rather use stronger encryption than weaker signals.
Everyone knows the main problem with Wi-Fi: Security. It's relatively easy for intruders to sniff packets out of the air and even connect to the wireless net. While most wireless companies have responded by trying to beef up the encryption, smart people a long time ago developed a device called a "network cable". This means no energy leaking through walls, and no extra precautions necessary to block it from exiting through windows. The cables can be laid so that several networks can be co-located in the same physical space.
It's been done, okay? If you're going to carefully aim IR antennas and put up filters on windows, just lay some Cat-5 already. It's cheaper, faster, and more secure.
Its all about trade offs. Speed vs security vs mobility. If you are lucky you can pick a network system that has any 2 of the above 3. With IR you would get security and *limited* mobility, with wired you would get speed and security, and with WiFi you get *limited* speed and good mobility. You cant have your cake and eat it too people. I see no point in going wireless if it requires line of sight.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
I remember back in 1992 the University of Michigan's College of Engineering had a couple wireless computer labs (both for classroom use) set up for testing. One used Motorola's Altair 18GHz radio product, another an infrared product.
4 S0062
In fact, here's a Network Magazine article from almost 10 years ago exactly on the topic:
http://www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG2000072
I remember the Altair presenting an interesting problem because its data packets were slightly smaller than AppleTalk packets; the AppleTalk packets had to be split up and performance was severely degraded.
...the University of Warwick's engineering department shows some spanking new technology that replaces those nasty and still interceptable wireless signals with a brand new concept called "cabling".
Come on people, this is a terrible approach (as it kills the *only* Wi-Fi advantage), based on security through obscurity, *and* at the same time a questionable achievement, cuz ya know... IR isn't a new technology/concept/medium...
it seems to me that an office building could theoretically be built to fairly effectively dampen any wireless going on within it - the problem being that it would also dampen any wireless waves trying to come in. So - we lose the following:
Radio: mount an antennae on the roof, setup some radio streaming servers inside the building that people can point [insert fav. audio player] at.
CellPhones: This is a little trickier, but there once was the idea that your cell could transfer calls to your desk phone automatically. I know some cellphones offer a forwarding option, I don't know how automatic this is - perhaps you could set it to be scheduled?
TV: Shouldn't be watching TV at work, if you should be - they probably have cable anyways, problem solved.
I mean, really, the only problem you have beyond that is when you're in a large shared office building - and when you're mixing interests like that anyways you don't much damned security anyways, and maybe you shouldn't be using wireless except during that all important meeting, when you connect ad-hoc to a predetermined server that's not tied to the company intranet.
Surely I've missed something or put something inaccurate out there - so let the replys flow
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
Great.. the boss' kid comes to the office on a weekend with a TV remote control and DoSs the LAN.
Trolling is a art,
What's the point of wireless if you think the ability to be in another room is a disadvantage? If it's so awful, why not just plug the computers in physically like in the olden days?
"You make the network more secure because infrared energy is contained within a room and doesn't leak out through the walls and windows. You can equip the windows to reflect infrared energy," said Green.
You could have some serious fun with companies depending on the configuration of the reflective surface. If boths sides are IR reflective you lose solar heating benefits but gain security. If only the inside is IR reflective to keep the signal trapped, whilst IR is allowed in from the outside, then a fun attack would be some IR beams from afar aimed at the windows to heat up the room and fry the marketdroids and PHB's!!
It's funny that you mention that. I remember trying to transfer files at school from an IrDA capable laptop to an IrDA capable printer. It took 3 hours and in the end we had to build a cardboard tunnel to cut the interfereance out. (the funniest part was at about hour 2 when we realised that the manufacturer's plastic protecting sticky tape was still on the electronic eye of the printer. We peeled it off and got a much better signal)
Anyway, from the picture of the optical antenna, I would guess that it would be oriented upwards so that it looks like a big fisheye lense pointing at the ceiling. Since IR bounces off walls (I know because I've sometimes changed the channel on my TV while pointing my remote in the opposite direction) then I guess that the whole point of the optical antenna is that it is able to see the ceiling and not be blocked because if the direct LOS is blocked, than this omnidirectional antenna should get usable signal from the reflections coming in the opposite direction.
when you can use our patented security protocol?
You just put the message into the secure wrapper, and it's safe from prying eyes!
Neolight Networks Introduces Lightbulb Network
Tuesday November 12, 12:30 am ET, Lies Newswire
Weird Valley -- Neolight Networks Inc(R) is about to launch their revolutionary Lightbulb Network (TM) this coming Friday. Instead of using expensive infrared equipment, they're using normal light. "It's a cheap and secure network" said Al Bundy, CEO at Neolight Networks. "All spare parts are readily available at any store, which keeps maintenance costs down to a minimum." Bundy continued. "The Lightbulb Network is slightly slower than an infrared network, but otherwise it works on the same principle." said Bundy. "This network is as secure as the customer wants it to be. But we do recommend our customers to paint all the windows black and run the equipment on an internal power supply." Bundy said with a wide smile on his lips. There are some minor drawbacks though... Employees are not allowed to use any type of bright light, since this would crash the network. "But the light bulbs will blink the whole time, and give a nice disco feeling in the workplace." Bundy quickly added. People who suffer from epilepsy can't work in the rooms were the network is installed. Al Bundy told us that he recommends the customers to lay off all epileptic people... "it would save them from being sued once the network is up and running" Bundy told us.
OK - so we have had several stories in the past several weeks talking about WiFi this and that - and I have posted a few comments asking about wifi security. I would like some help from you guys - as it seems that there are several out there who really understand securing wifi networks. (I have written to both the sputnik (linuxcare) guys - and the locustworld.com guys - but have gotten no responses from either about security)
OOK - here is the scenario:
Imagine an ISP that is *only* wireless. They want to be a "community" ISP, want to offer only wireless wifi internet access, and want to charge for it a flat rate of 20/month. They have wireless APs covering several city blocks - or a whole city. with a physical tie at some city based colo. How do they protect the network - so that only paying customers can be authenticated and use the system?
What i have been thinking so far is that for signing up - you have to purchase/get/rent/whatever - the wireless card from the ISP. This cards MAC is in an ISP DB and its get authenticated. In addition - that MAC is tied back to a username password (or biometric) auth which then validates the user and opens up the port. Is it possible to have an ISP with such a system - that is not too overly paranoid secure - but not just a leech-net?
I think there are three very important things that should be considered when thinking about WiFi ISPs in general:
1. they should be put in place ASAP - even if they arent that secure yet.
2. we (the tech community at large) should fully support them, and pay 20/month for access.
3. wifi ISPs should offer free access to the system for city government - municipal services like fire depts, police, city engineering etc..
WHY? well because we have seen already how the big ass companies handle our bandwidth, our information, our trust and our money.
We should get a community monopoly on these systems as soon as possible. I nkow that I am *done* having any sort of qwest, global crossing, worldcom corrumpany in charge of my access.....
seriously - this is an important issue - and one where we ahve the advantage because these companies are A) almost bankrupt B) dont understand the technology C) typically slow to move on stuff like this. The only problem is that they traditionally have very deep pockets to buy things out.
But with Level 3 trying to buy up all the fiber runs it can - and absorb as many of the IP-traffic-assets as possible - they are looking to run 90% of the data routing market... but the WiFi last mile can and should be a community owned system.
Imagine if the model was changed so that a carrier would have to *pay the community* to be the access provider. If there were several million people in a city - and that city had its own WiFi network - and it was putting out bids for connections to the outside internet - you'd better believe the carriers would be putting down some fat bandwidth at reduced price for that level of market share.
We need to stop thinking so small, have some vision and take over the market and make it the way we want it.