Slashdot Mirror
House Paint Foils Wardrivers
Ant writes "Security-minded U.S. decorators' supply outfit, Force Field Wireless,
claims to have developed a do-it-yourself solution to the international menace of
marauding geek wardrivers: DefendAir paint 'laced with copper and aluminum fibers that form an electromagnetic shield, blocking most radio waves and protecting wireless networks.' According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel's report,
one coat of the water-based paint 'shields Wi-Fi, WiMax and Bluetooth networks operating at frequencies from 100 megahertz to 2.4 gigahertz", while two or three applications are 'good for networks operating at up to five gigahertz.' However, there are downsides to this." Since it's a water-based paint, exterior use is only recommended for people who want more copper and aluminum in the soil surrounding their house.
This story was already covered here
Found by searching Slashdot for "paint".
2 12 8253&tid=193&tid=172&tid=218
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/29/
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Just because it's water base doesn't mean it will wash away with water. Latex paint is water based... Once the water evaporates the emulsion hardens.
Yap, at just about 1.9 GHz (or at .9 or 1.8 GHz for my European friends).
Does your phone operate at frequencies from 100 megahertz to 2.4 gigahertz" ?
Yes, 1.9Ghz actually
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
For proof, go stand in front of your microwave oven with the door closed, heat a glass of water for a minute, then go reproduce. If your children are born with n arms, where 1 < n < 3, the EMF was blocked.
John
Take a look inside your walls. I'll bet you've got thermal insulation in there that is in those rolls sandwiched between aluminum foil. That will put a pretty good dent in the UHF and up, but the RF will leak out elsewhere.
Would that happen to be the same encryption that cable, satellite and content provider pirates brag about cracking, no matter how much it changes? Or did you mean some other "never to be broken" encryption?*
Lets see:
So, what do we have? Weak security schemes that involve 'security through obscurity'. Kind of like setting up a wireless network and hoping that nobody finds it. :)
Now, lets look at wireless encryption:
Yes, some encryption sucks. We know that. Some 'encryption' turns out to be slightly more than access control -- encryption on certain Microsoft formats used to be able to be broken by just erasing the password field in the document! Some encryption is a more obfucated version of ROTn.
That doesn't make all encryption schemes worthless.
Some encryption schemes have been peer-reviewed for many, many years without flaws being found. Short of a "Sneakers"-style mathmatical breakthrough, its doubtful that some of these schemes will ever be broken. Others may be vulnerable to the sheer brute force that a quantum computer may do. A good OTP systems using a good scheme to collect its random numbers will never be breakable without a pad.
Currently, there are encryption schemes which are for all practical purposes, unbreakable. Want to snoop in on a SSH session? You better be willing to compromise a computer on one end, or torture someone for information. Want to feed information from an IPSEC-protected wireless network? Break into one of the machines or break out the bamboo splints.
*Physics verses encryption? My votes for physics.
Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Other than physically torturing someone for information, or building a better brute-force machine, physics doesn't break encryption. Mathmatics does.
Not sure how effective this is at the frequencies we are talking about, but this one uses a safe nickel pigment, and is entirely odourless and solvent free: ECOS EMR radiation shielding paint.
GSM phones regularly try to poll their base station even when not in use. When there's no signal, they do this at maximum power.
Earlier tin was used in antifouling paints to prevent marine growth in boat bottoms. Later it was replaced with copper but nowadays in Scandinavia it is also prohibited (from 2004), at least for leasure boaters because of environmental reasons. The paints will prevent marine growth also near boats and can be a severe hazard by marinas. Using brush few times a season serves the same thing.
Many water-based latex paints are sold as environmentaly friendly. However, they may have larger emissions on hazardious substances than oil- or solvent-based paints.
Er, no it's not. Microwave ovens radiate at about 2.3-2.4 GHz, but the resonant frequency of water which that affects is about 10 GHz. The suboptimal matching means that microwaves penetrate food, rather than flash-boiling the outside layer and leaving the inside raw.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
I thought folks at /. were supposed to know at least a little science.
Microwaves send out waves with power on the order of several HUNDRED WATTS (or more). The wireless antenna in your laptop is about a hundred MILLIWATTS. Both signals are at 2.4GHz, the same as a domestic microwave oven. So right there we are talking 1000+ fold less intensity of signal.
Then there is the distance factor. Radiation declines as the square of the distance from the source - so if you move from 1 foot to 2 feet from the antenna the intensity falls to 25%. A microwave concentrates its power in a volume about 3-4 square feet in size, your head will be at the edge of something like a 25-30 square foot of volume from your laptop's antenna (assuming you don't place it on your head).
In short MOD PARENT DOWN, it's WRONG.
Is aluminum and copper in the soil actually a bad thing? I thought those metals just passed right through us. After all, we do use aluminum foil on our food and we move drinking water through copper pipes. Aluminum is fairly reactive and easily forms aluminum oxide, which, if I remember correctly, is a noteworthy portion of ordinary clay. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.
I know they're looking to improve convenience, but I think someone should say one more time for the late arrivals: If you're really worried about network security, don't use wireless.