Windows 7 Can Create Rogue Wi-Fi Access Point
alphadogg writes "Windows 7 contains a 'SoftAP' feature, also called 'virtual Wi-Fi,' that allows a PC to function simultaneously as a Wi-Fi client and as an access point to which other Wi-Fi-capable devices can connect. The capability is handy when users want to share music and play interactive games. But it also can allow on-site visitors and parking-lot hackers to piggyback onto the user's laptop and 'ghost ride' into a corporate network unnoticed."
While this means a bit more policing for networks meant to be locked down, it sounds like a good thing overall. Linux users, meanwhile, have had kernel support (since 2.6.26) for 802.11s mesh networking, as well as Host AP support for certain chipsets.
Microsoft Z has been found to contain feature X, which purports to do Y but used incorrectly could instead cause W! Linux has had feature X since 20VV, the 'Year of the Linux Desktop'.
Ghost ridin' the whip! No seriously, I've been wanting to use the Linux host AP features to bring up a mischievous AP that does man-in-the-middle attacks. I'd be connected to some open wifi somewhere, and someone would connect to my netbook and also see an open access point. I'd then give them the upside-downternet: http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html
Any OS will have problems if used incorrectly. This biased reporting is BS. It needs to stop.
Agreed, this is beyond stupid. You could do the same with XP if you like, but now its a little easier. I used to share a cellular card this way years ago. The "policing" and "lockdown" of "rogue" access points is like one click in group policy or a value in a reg key.
Slashdot has become the fox news of tech.
You are misunderstanding the problem. The PC running this feature becomes a router bridging their local and probably unauthenticated network with whatever secure network they are already connected to. Add network connection sharing to the mix and you have a security hole regardless of how 'locked down' the original network is. How big a problem this is will depend on the implementation and I haven't seen it.