Slashdot Mirror
Device Boots Drones, Google Glass Off Wi-Fi
An anonymous reader writes: Amid the backlash against spy-eye drones as well as wearable cameras like Google Glass, one company is building a device to fight back. The Cyborg Unplug actively scans for drones or Google Glass on a local wireless network and blocks their traffic. They're billing it as an "anti-surveillance system" and marketing it toward businesses, restaurants, and schools. They take pains to note that it's not a jammer, instead sending copies of a de-authentication packet usually sent by a router when it disconnects a device. The device can, however, force devices to disconnect from any network, which they warn may be illegal in some places.
No different to someone saying to the device user, "Get off the network." The device is welcome to ignore the request.
And, following a patch, probably will.
Still, the best way to start to deal with Google Glass is to ostracize the users and ban them from all private establishments. In public streets, simply hold a cameraphone in front of them continually.
if you don't want people on your wifi, just enable encryption.
Besides, do you really think bad guys are going to honor a deauth packet, especially one sent in bad faith?
Perhaps this device could actually fall through some legal loopholes?
It doesn't interfere with radio signals themselves (per FCC). It doesn't interfere with legally protected phone communications (also FCC). It takes advantage of wireless standards that have been adopted, but that themselves have little legal protection.
All it's doing is sending instructions that devices happen to listen to and obey. Bad on the hardware protocols that they allow any equipment to issue these unverified types of commands?
People can choose to allow or deny access to people and their devices at will.
Glassholes are gonna find that they are as welcomed as smokers in many places.
First of all, it's totally irrelevant what these glasses may show the wearer. It's the fact that there's a camera present, and it could potentially be recording that's the problem.
Second of all, why the fuck should we trust the light to be correct? For all we know the camera is recording, but the light is broken or otherwise not on. That's why we have to assume that the camera is in fact recording at all times, regardless of what the light may indicate.
The GP is right. We should ostracize any freak who wants to invidate the privacy of others. Spying on people like that is a deviant behavior to engage in, and anyone engaging in it should indeed be shunned.
So a guy goes out in a field with a recreational drone, connected to his laptop by his very own wifi. Someone else decides they doesn't like drones, and punts the drone off the network (and effectively keeps it from reconnecting). It's now no longer under manual control.
Yes a drone should have enough automatic control to keep it from cratering when that happens, but you never know. If the drone falls out of the sky and brains some little kid, or keeps going in a straight line and crashes into a building, whoever severed that manual control is going to share some responsibility (at least moral responsibility).
It is a standalone device, not cooperating with the wifi hub, but it can still send a disconnect request as if from that hub? How is this not a major security flaw in the design of the wireless protocol?
If I was going to implement something like this I would try the following:
Request for DHCP address detected:
is it from a prohibited MAC address range?
Give a bogus Gateway address (packets from the device are lost)
Else give legitimate address
What's the problem?
#DeleteChrome
From the FA : "This spring, Oliver made headlines in the tech press by writing glasshole.sh, a Web script"
Shell scripts are now Web scripts. Thank you based CNN.
Deauth frames are unencrypted management frames. Anyone can construct a deauth frame from scratch to kick anyone off any network.
802.11w adds security to management frames: ...which prevents this sort of silliness. You can't spoof deauth frames from other stations now, unless the WiFi network happens to be running on an older device.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11w-2009#Protected_Management_Frames
Before 802.11w, you could do a passive scan, collect target MAC addresses, and then spoof deauth frames all day long, I know people used to do this at conferences or other crowded events.
"It's absurd that you talk about "responsibility", but then hold responsible everybody but the person who actually was irresponsible."
I'm not sure you read my post very well. "Shares some responsibility" is not the same as "holds all responsibility", and that's a terrible analogy. It's closer to interrupting the signal of a model plane, and those are entirely legal and socially acceptable. A pilot generally shouldn't fly it somewhere dangerous, but if you kill that signal, you are making a flying object a lot more unpredictable than if it was under user control.
Besides, beyond the danger, there's just the property damage aspect if it gets lost or goes down in trees or a lake. Is it okay to run down the beach cutting peoples' kite strings, just because hey, they can snap by themselves in a heavy wind?
Video is stored locally.
All it's going to do is alert the user that something might be going on that is worth recording, so start recording now!
Let's say your phone uses a Li-Ion battery. Someone who merely broadcasts a high-powered microwave signal at your pocked should in no way be held responsible just because you chose a battery that's prone to exploding when subjected to intense heat.
Considering that this thing bocks via mac addresses, I'm assuming it's only a matter of time (if it's not possible already) until the drone and glass users start enabling mac spoofing. BTW, the only thing a MAC address has that is "unique" is the macufacturer ID section. The rest is random. So I'm also going to assume that this device will also block any device that just so happens to have a NIC which is also used by a drone or glass maufacturer. So much for open wifi....
No you fucking twat it isn't.
Heres a fucking slashcar analogy... you be driving along and I shoot you in the head causing you to crash. Good thing it's not MY fault you crashed, you OBVIOUSLY could have prevented the crash even when you were dead....
Fucking retarded morons on /. these days.
... on "your WiFi with no legal problems.
A person can do that right now by disallowing people to ride oh "their" WiFi, now.
One of the places I go to offers "free WiFi." You have to get today's password from them and it's an Internet cafe where they casually monitor the network.
As for doing anything to other people's WiFi? Strictly illegal.
People discussing cell phone interruption are missing the design point. It's a "gett off my network," not a radio frequency jammer.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Or any Access point for that matter.... Drones use similar tech to operate, but they aren't going to attach to your Linksys at the coffee shop.
I work for a company that make enterprise class Wi-Fi products. This is a pointless device. This can be done with the access point or array controls.
But this only prevents the Wi-Fi network from moving traffic, device is still usable. As many have already ponted out.
An 802.11-compliant device that receives a deauthentication message is required to terminate its connection to the base station. As such, if you transmit a deauth, you didn't just "express an idea", you gave a command to a device that's required to obey it. It's like saying "I'm not responsible for the damage caused by hitting the self-destruct button; whoever wired the button to the explosives is". When YOUR actions cause something to happen that wouldn't have happened if you didn't do anything, then YOU are completely at fault.
Whoever selected wifi is negligent, but that doesn't fully absolve the deauthenticator of responsibility.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
If you're complaining about Google Glass being too invasive, you are a privacy advocate.
If you're complaining about Google Glass being too invasive on Facebook, you're either a moron or a hypocrite.
Seriously, I've noticed a high correlation between people who will tell you that Google Glass is a terrible invasion of their privacy and anyone who wears Google Glass should be ostracized and or beaten to death, and people who well tell you that "it's the Internet stupid, there's no more privacy, so just get over it, princess".
The outrage over Google Glass is an ephemeral cultural phenomenon that will go away when Google Glass (or it's competitors) are actually affordable consumer products. If you're concerned enough about Google Glass to take aggressive actions against users of Google Glass, then you better be mad enough about ubiquitous surveillance to be aggressive about it, too.
God, hipsters are obnoxious, awful human beings.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ok so the google glass or what ever doesn't connect to your local wifi.... Um and the google glass wearer with their paired LTE phone in their pocket cares why exactly????
And as for a drone connecting to your wifi - i'm assuming we are looking at war-driving (flying I suppose) drones?
Pointless devices that is probably illegal looking for a situation that doesn't exist.
Think it through, son.
No, you wouldn't be responsible for causing the crash. The driver you shot and killed would still be responsible, even in death. She was the one who lost control of the vehicle.
You, however, would be responsible for the murder of the driver. This was a criminal action you directly engaged in.
It's not difficult to comprehend. You are responsible for your actions. You are not responsible for the actions of others. They are responsible for their actions.
If we assume it's relying on MAC matching, then all one has to do is reprogram a different MAC into the device... Or run a bit of software that changes the MAC on the fly...
And it still doesn't take into account that the drones can use 3G/4G connections, or just an onboard DVR. Same deal with someone wanting to record in the establishment - they can have a camera in a button-style lens with a local DVR, or stream it out over a 3G/4G phone connection...
Actually, you would not only be responsible for the car crash, but also for the rape of the driver's companion by your friend after the car crashed.
You are responsible for all your actions... and their consequences, so think again. Or go ahead and be surprised down the road, whatever.
Are all the anti-glass hardliner posts AC's?
Is this more microsoft astroturf?
All these anti-glass freaks are hilarious. Do they know that the tech will evolve into buttons (the clothes kind, not pinned), watches, hats, broaches, necklaces AND run on cellular? Good luck stopping that, pussies.
This is arguably a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 333 (2012), prohibiting willful or malicious interference with radio communications.
I shit my pants. You all have to eat it.
That makes more sense, thanks. I mean, what's so special about booting from the network, why does it have to be wifi, and why do you need a special device?
Change device name and user agent (if not encrypted, they don't know what you are unless you tell them.
Nah, let's say you walk out to the park with a loaded revolver. You're out there, tossing it over and over again into the air. Someone throws a rock at it, it goes off, shoots someone. Is the rock thrower the only one liable? Or am I liable for a damned air hazard?
Local law here is that video surveillance 8security camera and so forth) cannot so easily be sold or spread without consent of those filmed. As a firm if you get caught get ready for load of problem by the law if you start doing that without release consent. On the other hand mobile phone / google glass is another can of worm because those are done by private persons and the probability of them getting a problem because no consent form is low. So de facto security camera are not a problem, mobile phone or google glass ARE a problem. But mobile phone filming is much easier to detect than google glass filming. Mobile phone : move right and left and the mobile phone is tracking you. Google glass with an intentionally burned out led : the google glass head is tracking you as if only looking at you.
Maybe the sort of excuse you are touting will work in the US or other country where privacy law are so weak. But try that in the EU and good luck explaining yourself.
That's a DoS, no more, no less. I don't see how selecting drones or google glasses makes it different ?
If you don't want drones or google glasses on your network, configure your router not to accept them.
Someone created a device which *has* to engage in active surveillance to force a device which may or may not be engaged in surveillance off it's currently connected network.
I wonder if the device can be configured to kick itself off the network? Someone could bring a 2nd one in, plug it up, and let it actively scan for the 1st device then keep kicking it off.
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement