Slashdot Mirror
ProxyHam Debunked and Demoed At DEFCON
darthcamaro writes: Last month, the ProxyHam project talk for DEFCON was mysteriously cancelled. In its place as a later edition is a new talk, in which the ProxyHam approach will be detailed and debunked — in a session called '"HamSammich". In a video preview of the talk, Rob Graham and Dave Maynor detail the flaws of ProxyHam and how to do the same thing with off the shelf gear, legally. "Our goal is to show that ProxyHam did not actually enhance security," Maynor said. "It does the exact opposite, causing more trouble than you can fix."
I can read. I don't need to watch two retards mumble their way through a poorly shot video.
The difference is mainly in legal vs illegal. It's not illegal to hide yourself, but it IS illegal using the previous method. Broadcasting all over a licensed band is a quick way to end up in trouble. HAMs self report, no FCC required. Hell, we'd grab the YAGIs and make a game out of finding the prick.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
The paragraphs of fluff "introduction" has always bugged me, but lately I've run into a few articles which have all the fluff, then completely forget to address the question, to EVER get to the point. Stuff like:
HOW TO BOOT DIAGNOSTIC MODE IN ANDROID
Android is the world's most popular ... ...
Cell phones are now more popular than PCs
Diagnostic mode should be used with care ... ...
Some carriers disable diagnostic mode
THE END
Hey asshole! You forgot to say how to boot into diagnostic mode!
and if y'all are being POLITE said prick might land up in the local jail.
if not ... (insert theme to BONES)
The difference is mainly in legal vs illegal. It's not illegal to hide yourself, but it IS illegal using the previous method. Broadcasting all over a licensed band ...
1. It's not "broadcasting", it's point-to-point data.
2. It's unlicensed for the devices that were being used.
HAMs self report, no FCC required. Hell, we'd grab the YAGIs and make a game out of finding the prick.
Yeah, go track down a legal secondary user of a band where you are a secondary user yourself and Part 97 (97.301 and 97.303(e)) tells you that you must accept interference from, and then what? Force them to stop their legal use of the frequencies you want to call your own?
The "previous method" is no different than the current one. You didn't bother to read any of the discussion about this in the earlier /. dust-up and conspiracy party, did you? It was pointed out by several people, myself included, that the ProxyHam hardware shown in the pictures they released were simple 900 MHz unlicensed data radios and cheap Yagi-Uda antennas. That's not illegal. They weren't shut down by some awful FCC or NSA conspiracy to stop some dangerous hacking activity, because it was both legal and the intended use for the commercial products they were using.
and if y'all are being POLITE said prick might land up in the local jail.
For what, using a legal data radio link in a way that doesn't require a license and isn't causing you any interference?
if not ... (insert theme to BONES)
If not, YOU wind up in jail for assault and trespass, and the FCC yanks your ham license for failing to abide by the Part 97 rules that say you must accept interference, if any, from the guy you beat up, and for a demonstrated lack of moral character that has cost other felons their licenses.
Y'all need to take a breath and realize that there are other authorized users of ham frequencies, some of whom don't need licenses to operate there, and some of whom you are required to accept interference from. Just because they show up on what you consider your private radio real-estate and don't have a ham license doesn't mean they're doing anything illegal, or anything that you can legally threaten violence against them for.
You miss the point about broadcast or point to point. The point to point link still must "broadcast" energy in the RF spectrum to work.
No, I used the term correctly. The radio transmits, but it is not a broadcast.
Does the 900MHz band in use have bandwidth available to transmit the signal?
Of course it does. They were using a COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED data radio with FCC approval for sale in the US. If you mean "are there hams trying to use the bandwidth", then it doesn't matter. It is a SHARED RESOURCE, and as an ISM device hams are legally required to accept any interference there might be from it. Damn unlikely to be any, though, given the low power and narrow radiation pattern being used.
it's the GSM mobile band.
Oh yes, I think the FCC might have something to say about that.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
... and then once you found me, I'd make a game out of it from there that you would neither like nor be prepared to handle.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
They might let the ham folks toy with you for a little while before they step in with guns, arrest, and fines. The FCC has been a bit devious in the past and has allowed some vigilante behavior to go unnoticed.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."