Slashdot Mirror


Jamming Wi-Fi With a $15 Dongle

An anonymous reader writes with this report about just how easy it is to disrupt if not entirely kill modern consumer-grade networks -- not just Wi-Fi, but Bluetooth and Zigbee networks, too. Crucial to determining the likelihood of any given kind of attack, though, is how much it would cost the attacker to attempt. The bad news for network owners and users is that it doesn't cost much at all: "According to Mathy Vanhoef, a PhD student at KU Leuven (Belgium), it can easily be done by using a Wi-Fi $15 dongle bought off Amazon, a Raspberry Pi board, and an amplifier that will broaden the range of the attack to some 120 meters."

136 comments

  1. With a $15 dongle? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it can easily be done by using a Wi-Fi $15 dongle bought off Amazon, a Raspberry Pi board, and an amplifier that will broaden the range of the attack to some 120 meters.

    In other news, I can build myself a car with a $3 roll of duct tape bought off Amazon, as long as I happen to have all the other pieces sitting in my garage. Astounding!

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    1. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should give the presenter some credit for figuring out how to update the Atheros firmware! I have a 30 year old BSCS, I doubt I would have the skills to do this.

      And I haven't researched to see what kind of amplifier he suggests (how much $$), but even without the amp I'm sure this attack would work for a small room. So the full cost of the attack is $15 for wi-fi dongle and $30 for a PI. It certainly changes the equation over needing thousands of dollars worth of spectrum analyzers and other radio equipment.

    2. Re:With a $15 dongle? by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      It is not really the point here but I hate it when I see "build X with $5" when you actually need at least $100 worth of junk that, somehow, every people must have. And that's not counting the tools.

    3. Re:With a $15 dongle? by sobachatina · · Score: 2

      I know!

      And they never even account for the costs of the person's education or years of experience.
      They don't list the cost of the the facility where a project like this can be built without being rained on.
      Or the health care over the years to ensure that one's hands and mind function adequately for the task.
      They don't even account for the cost of the calories of food required for thought and motor control.

      This project would actually cost >$1,000,000

      Seriously though, if you are committed to a hobby, there are many projects that will be much cheaper for you than for a person who has not yet entered that hobby. It is normal to only list consumable components in the list of prices. Tools, for example, are a sunk cost and not consumable so they are not listed. I often see this frustration from visitors to hacking and hobbyist sites. People who are upset that getting into a hobby requires an upfront investment in time and money that then makes everything else cheaper.

      That said- I agree that the rPi and amp should have been listed. Even if it is likely that a person would have an rPi around- it is still consumed by the project.

    4. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's idiotic. You'll need at least two rolls of duct tape.

      Kidding aside, the statement isn't as stupid as you make it out to be. You just need to be a little more open minded for the evil possibilities.

      First of all, the antenna is only required to extend the range, so it isn't a hard requirement. Secondly, by Raspberry PI, they mean pretty much any computer. Even one that isn't yours. It could be a public terminal that isn't properly secured, for example.

      So, it is not entirely untrue that you could do this for $15 dollars.

    5. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      > Kidding aside, the statement isn't as stupid as you make it out to be. You just need to be a little more open minded for the evil possibilities.

      No kidding here at all, I want this for my car or motorcycle. I want 100 foot bubble of no people talking or texting when I am on the highway ! ( +/- 10 Ft )

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    6. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All to end up with something you can't legally use.

    7. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is for Wifi, not cell networks (although there are jammers for those too). Even so, it wouldn't stop someone from writing a text, only from sending one. And I doubt it would be safer for you to jam calls, as most people's first reaction when their call drop is to look down at it to check signal and redial, not pay more attention to the road.

    8. Re: With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, ignore the amp and the price shrinks to just 3 times the headline figure.

      If it's $45, just put $45 in the story.

    9. Re:With a $15 dongle? by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'd have a bubble where people were fiddling with their phones because it just crapped out on them.

    10. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems extremely self-destructive. I don't want anyone fiddling with their phone due to a dropped connection anywhere near my bike.

    11. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      Uhg,

      Fair enough. I drop my bid for a Cell-free bubble in favor of an EMP burst from 200 miles up. Lets just go back to castles and fiefdoms.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    12. Re:With a $15 dongle? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Great job. Force-drop all 911 calls as you drive by any accident.

    13. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      This argument is akin to the law of every post eventually including Hitler in some fo... Oh crap I just did it...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    14. Re: With a $15 dongle? by ememisya · · Score: 2

      Misleading title indeed. I think what is worthy of attention here is that wireless "security" cameras aren't very useful unless they actively shift their frequency and amplitude based on the environment, and send out an alert along the lines of, "We are under attack" through cable means. Hey, there's an idea, too bad frequencies to shift inbetween are severly limited by regulation but should thwart a noob with a powerful transmitter.

    15. Re:With a $15 dongle? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You may be interested in reading this before you try that: http://fox2now.com/2014/04/30/...

    16. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if you would include at least a sentence summarizing your blind link. After all, you went to the effort of going to that page and cut-n-pasting the URL.

    17. Re:With a $15 dongle? by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry. A guy in Florida was fined $48000 by the FCC for operating a cell phone jammer in his car to prevent others near him from using their phones.

    18. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a shitty thing to do, encouraging people to stop carpooling or riding intercity transit buses.

      Oh, you didn't think that someone other than a driver would be using their phones? Well, makes sense, since you're riding a bike.

    19. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      You can have that if I can have a device that disables all motorcycles within 500m of my house.

      Such noisy machines.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    20. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go for it, I'll be in my faraday cage.

    21. Re: With a $15 dongle? by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      Most people already have a computer or phone and so you could, in theory, use the $15 wi-fi dongle and your computer/phone to do the attack as well. Though I guess you could nitpick about the need for a USB otg cable if all you own is a phone.

      I think the $15 claim is fine.

    22. Re:With a $15 dongle? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "All to end up with something you can't legally use."

      Same as with girls, guns, cars, ... all the fun stuff ain't legal.

    23. Re:With a $15 dongle? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No kidding here at all, I want this for my car or motorcycle. I want 100 foot bubble of no people talking or texting when I am on the highway ! ( +/- 10 Ft )

      A 100 foot bubble of personal precious snowflake status? You are the second most specialest person ever, after the pope.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Wow that's either bait or ignorance I can't tell which.

      Seriously though, people on their phones for any reason while they should be *driving* should carry the same if not worse convictions and consequences as driving drunk. The only reason Drunks should have it easier is at least they are *trying* to drive. While people on their phones don't seem to give a rats knackers.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    25. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a bike rider, there is one very important reason for it.

      My safety.

      if you hear me coming you know to look for me.

      The world is not all about you.

    26. Re:With a $15 dongle? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A 100 foot bubble of personal precious snowflake status? You are the second most specialest person ever, after the pope.

      Wow that's either bait or ignorance I can't tell which.

      Don't worry, you're about to find out which, and that you deserve to be baited.

      Seriously though, people on their phones for any reason while they should be *driving* should carry the same if not worse convictions and consequences as driving drunk.

      I don't disagree. The problem is, you want to wipe out broad swaths of legitimate use, and just around you. Because you're special, and you deserve to have control over radio emissions in your personal vicinity. You're going to block emergency calls, data use like google maps navigation with traffic alerts, voice control-enabled use of the internet like Siri and Google voice search, and of course completely legitimate use by passengers so that you can feel safe.

      You're not qualified to determine when others around you should be permitted to utilize the public airwaves. That many of them aren't either has no bearing on this fact whatsoever. If you get a cellphone jammer you deserve to have the FCC throw several books at you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can have that if I can have a device that disables all motorcycles within 500m of my house.

      Such noisy machines.

      In America I found that motorcycles were obnoxious machines designed primarily to make noise and stink.

      In Europe we have decent engineering, and our bikes are beautiful.

    28. Re:With a $15 dongle? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Sorry. A guy in Florida was fined $48000 by the FCC for operating a cell phone jammer in his car to prevent others near him from using their phones.

      Which makes that guy terribly dumb - he was running it non-stop for almost two years, driving the same routine every day. (Yes, they used "sophisticated techniques" to find him - or, you sit with a cell phone and a video camera on the overpass for a week, and see which cars always show up when your signal drops. Not to mention that he wasn't bright enough to turn it *off* when the cops pulled him over.

      Stupid crooks, ruining it for the rest of us...

    29. Re:With a $15 dongle? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      > just around you

      Ideally there would be laws preventing cell phone use by drivers that is strictly enforced and people would just use good common sense *everywhere* and focus on their driving when driving instead of their phone, makeup, meal and in some cases having sex.

      Nobody is special DrinkyPoo, but everyone wants to *feel* safe, even if they really aren't. Having the desire to be safe shouldn't be considered 'special'. It's human nature. I pull over to talk on the phone if it's an important call etc. If we have to call 911 to report a Drunk Driver my passenger makes the call while I focus on driving.

      > You're not qualified to determine when others around you should be permitted to utilize the public airwaves.

      What I would give to be emperor. The truth is the collective majority has determined that activity to be dangerous and kills more people than Drunk Driving. In this case our opinions have *every* bearing on the matter.

      > have the FCC throw several books at you.

      I would prefer they throw magazines at me but that's a conversation of a different color. :)

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    30. Re:With a $15 dongle? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      A trembler coil and a spark plug do a pretty good job too. Put it in a headlight and the interference is directional.

  2. PhD Student? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Probably any reasonably advanced ham operator could pull this off for nothing more than his/her labor and the parts in the junk drawer.

    1. Re: PhD Student? by alcmena · · Score: 1

      Heck, I had a Bright House modem that decided to jam all WiFi in my house, and it did it for free. That was a fun conversation with support. Trying to help a "just reboot" monkey to understand that when the modern was on, every WiFi networks within 100 meters on it became useless.

  3. PhD by darkain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait, it took a PhD student to figure out that broadcasting malicious signals disrupts signals on the similar wavelengths? And OMGs it effects BlueTooth, too!? Totally didn't know that two personal usage wireless communication specs would both be using unlicensed spectrum, WHO WOULDA THOUGHT!?

    I can do it for quite a bit less. Just put a small piece of plastic into the door switch of a microwave so it thinks it is closed, but leave it open. Now turn it on. You can cook yourself while killing Wifi all throughout the house! [DISCLAIMER, DON'T ACTUALLY DO THIS]

    1. Re:PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried and got a tingling in my chest.?

    2. Re:PhD by Gliscameria · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's how you know it's working.

      --
      X
    3. Re:PhD by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It's just proof that a "phd" doesnt mean shit nowdays.

      Most garage tinkerers knew this, many of them with high school only education.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, even with the door closed, every microwave I've owned disturbs WiFi when it's on.

    5. Re:PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Idiot.
      "During his recent presentation at BruCON, Vanhoef explained that by modifying the dongle's firmware he was able to force the target networks to always give priority to the device's transmissions. If the device is made to transmit continuously, it means that all other devices won't be able to, making the channel effectively unusable.
      His attempts at selective jamming (blocking specific packets) have been less successful, and he concluded that 100% reliable selective jamming is not possible.
      He also says that these low-level jamming attacks could influence attacks on higher level protocols. For example, he says that they can be used to mount a channel-based MiTM attack against WPA's Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP), which is still widely used."

      This is not a typical jamming technique (e.g., blast the spectrum with a microwave).

    6. Re: PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to have an electrician verify proper grounding at least for the circuit powering the microwave, if not the whole house. A modern microwave on a properly grounded circuit shouldn't leak RF like that.

    7. Re:PhD by Lou57 · · Score: 1

      It's just proof that a "phd" doesnt mean shit nowdays.

      Actually, it does. I was always told that:

      BS = bullshit
      MS = more shit
      PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper

      --
      Lou
    8. Re:PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since this is unlicensed spectrum.....
      can't you just transmit a strong enough analog signal in the 2.4 and 5Ghz bands?

    9. Re:PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha ha. good one. ignorant though.

    10. Re:PhD by darkain · · Score: 1

      So basically, this is EXACTLY what was already done back in 2009 then? Back when TKIP was broken using QoS packets to break encryption and establish MitM attacks on Wifi? So, what's new here?

    11. Re:PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be the bigger idiot...

      Guys on HACK A DAY posted an article that did pretty much this back in 2009.

    12. Re: PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's well known that microwave ovens are allowed to leak more energy than Wifi devices are allowed to transmit. That's one of the reasons why "electrosensitivity" is such a load of bullshit.

    13. Re: PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, check ground everything and see how it won't help AT ALL.

    14. Re:PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a tier-1 research university with a 'more shit' degree.. the parent to your post is accurate; your'e the ignorant one.

    15. Re:PhD by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Consider you theory of doctorates next time you need to visit a medical doctor or dentist, I'm sure it makes you feel all warm and cost inside. The only reason there is pride in ignorance is because of that ignorance.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is too complex.

      Easier to get a couple of old chinese knock off CCTV analog wireless camera (and 1W amp optional). Turn that on and it will flood the entire 2.4Ghz band. Period. I used to use one on channel 1 as a jammer to force certain multiband radios to configure themselves to the upper 2.4 ISM range. That's why you can't buy those cameras anymore, everything is pretty much 2.4Ghz DSSS/digital.

      In RF 101, loudest person blows everyone away. Duh.

    17. Re: PhD by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Actually it's well known that microwave ovens are allowed to leak more energy than Wifi devices are allowed to transmit. That's one of the reasons why "electrosensitivity" is such a load of bullshit.

      By the way, don't stand too close to your microwave when it is running. (!!) 8-)

  4. Isn't that illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and an amplifier that will broaden the range of the attack to some 120 meters

    1. Re:Isn't that illegal? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Yes and easily tracked down once you stir things up.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Isn't that illegal? by buck-yar · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you do what is in the OP, you are breaking the law. You need a FCC license (HAM probably) to transmit as the article states. Anything over 10mw, unless it has a FCC Part 15 exemption.

    3. Re:Isn't that illegal? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      You're still intentionally interfering so you're never going to be legal.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    4. Re: Isn't that illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Even licensed hams can't disrupt comms or the FCC would like a word...

    5. Re:Isn't that illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALL intentional interference (jamming) of any radio communication is a Federal offense.

    6. Re:Isn't that illegal? by rthille · · Score: 1

      You just need to do it from far enough offshore, and with enough power to still interfere :-)

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    7. Re:Isn't that illegal? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      On a ship registered to a country that has no laws regarding this

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  5. Baited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got caught.

    1. Re: Baited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha. And I read it as a SlashDot Deal.

  6. As Kravindish would say: by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    "This is illegal, you know."

    Marriott got fined over half a million dollars for jamming guests' Wi-Fi.

    1. Re:As Kravindish would say: by Kyogreex · · Score: 1

      I don't think that would matter to most of those who would have a reason to use something like this. Whether or not it's illegal, it's worth studying.

    2. Re:As Kravindish would say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't actually the Mariott, but the Hotspot provider they have who used that technique.

    3. Re:As Kravindish would say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how did they jam other wifi, but not their own?
      It must have been much more than a wifi noise generator jammer.

    4. Re: As Kravindish would say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no? Did you read the linked article? Marriott was the culprit and was fined. They even issued a statement.

    5. Re:As Kravindish would say: by driblio · · Score: 1

      If you rtfa (i haven't, but based on comments above!), that's what this guy did, selective jamming through the protocol, not noise.

    6. Re:As Kravindish would say: by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Marriott got fined over half a million dollars for jamming guests' Wi-Fi.

      And you can't afford the same lawyers as Marriott.

    7. Re: As Kravindish would say: by rworne · · Score: 1

      I used a tool that did this back in 2004 writing a thesis on WiFi security.

      Back then there was a nifty software tool called "Omerta". You can whitelist a bunch of access points and it will forge disassociate packets for all the other AP's in range, rendering them useless.

      Clients connected to the whitelisted AP have no issues whatsoever.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    8. Re:As Kravindish would say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forge a disassociation packet. The data path is encrypted, the protocol itself isn't.

  7. You don't need all that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A simple RC circuit, with an appropriate oscillator and power transister will give you a nice sawtooth pattern. The jamming capability all comes down to the power pushed out and the antenna used.

    1. Re:You don't need all that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, at those frequencies?? One suspects you don't know what you're talking about ("transister"? really?), and indeed, have never done it.

    2. Re:You don't need all that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get power transistors up to 20GHz fairly cheap.

      http://www.rfmw.com/Manufacturers/mitsubishi/FP/RF_Power_Transistor/?type=240&manf=375&NavType=1&sd=true

      Jammers are the simplist type of radio circuit you can make.

  8. Overcomplicated solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can also be done with a $15 microwave oven from the nearest Goodwill.

    I can do all kinds of bad things with existing technology.
    No one jams wireless networks because there's hardly any point aside from "LOLguys watch this".

    1. Re:Overcomplicated solution by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      This should be put under the "hey look at how i can be a disruptive asshole" category.

  9. Wifi. by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you using unlicensed Wifi spectrum for anything mission critical, such that jamming would be anything more than a slight inconvenience?

    More fool you.

    1. Re:Wifi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are vendors peddling wifi for industrial controls (including safety and emergency control). What could possibly go wrong?

    2. Re:Wifi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah always use licensed spectrum for mission critical stuff as the laws of physics respect your local regulator's terms of use.

      Spread ur spectrum. Diversify, man.

    3. Re:Wifi. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yup. Disrupting wi-fi, bluetooth, and zigbee networks should cause inconvenience only, nothing of real value is damaged. Cutting the wires though causes real problems.

    4. Re:Wifi. by Holi · · Score: 1

      You mean the ISM bands. It's not the "wifi spectrum".

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    5. Re:Wifi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the ISM bands. It's not the "wifi spectrum".

      No. He meant "wifi spectrum".

      Only a subset of ISM is allocated to 802.11. And almost every different country has a different regulatory allocation.

      Next time think before you show everything what a stupid prick you are.

  10. Malicious interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry,

    You don't need a PhD, knowledge of WiFi, networking protocols or the OSI model.

    Any skilled ham could build a circuit to disrupt a targeted portion of the radio spectrum, and probably with ALOT more power than a USB dongle could provide.

    1. Re:Malicious interference by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Some hams could, most couldn't.

      Of those who could there are FEW who would actually do it. Most of us understand that breaking the law is generally a bad idea and personally I value my extra ticket enough to not risk loosing it on some boneheaded violation of FCC regulations...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Malicious interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a lot" is two words. You don't write "alittle", do you?

    3. Re:Malicious interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I do.

    4. Re:Malicious interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alittle bit

    5. Re:Malicious interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a lot" is two words. You don't write "alittle", do you?

      You are akin to a retard.

  11. In other news... by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...did you know that you can render a car inoperable with a device as simple and cheap as a nail? That you can destroy many electronics simply by getting them wet? That you can harm a person simply by swinging a fist into them? Etc, etc, etc.

    Yes, we know this. For many things, it's not possible to make them unbreakable, therefore we enact societal consequences for breaking them like jail, fines, etc. It's been that was for, well, all of recorded history.

    1. Re:In other news... by mike449 · · Score: 1

      WiFi jamming can be concealed, and detecting the source is much more difficult and expensive (at the moment) than operating it.
      It is closer to anonymous bullying on the Internet than to physical assault. The consequences are much less immediate, meaning that sociopaths are more likely to use WiFi jammers than going around smashing cars and randomly beating people.

  12. In other news by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    Someone just realized Microwave Ovens can be used to jam wifi.

    1. Re:In other news by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I had one of those.

      Had to replace both the microwave and the WiFi router to find a combination that worked together.

      I bet the microwave was cheaper than TFA's hardware set up, and one-button simple. And also warmed Hot Pockets better.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  13. FCC will go ballistic over this by peter303 · · Score: 1

    They wont even allow cell-jammers in prisons where contraband cellphones are everywhere.

    1. Re:FCC will go ballistic over this by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off .. it's Belgium, so not so much with the FCC.

      But, really, if you assume a malicious actor, why the hell would they care?

      If it's cheap and easy to do it, people probably will. It's not like the FCC (or any other agency) has the ability to prevent the attacks just by saying you're not allowed to do it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:FCC will go ballistic over this by bobbied · · Score: 1

      It's not like the FCC (or any other agency) has the ability to prevent the attacks just by saying you're not allowed to do it.

      Quick, apply that logic to hand guns....

      Enforcement by the FCC may be a rare event, but it DOES happen. Generally you don't get caught directly by the FCC, you get turned in to the FCC by somebody who is being interfered with. The FCC might not be able fine you until they actually observe you breaking the rules, but they do often threaten to levy fines for radio frequency interference complaints. So there is *some* risk of getting into trouble for people who break the rules and run jammers.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:FCC will go ballistic over this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like the FCC (or any other agency) has the ability to prevent the attacks just by saying you're not allowed to do it.

      No, but they certainly have the power to fine you into oblivion or possibly even get you thrown into federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

    4. Re:FCC will go ballistic over this by bmo · · Score: 1

      >It's not like the FCC (or any other agency) has the ability to prevent the attacks

      They don't.

      They don't generally have the staff to hunt down pirate stations and things throwing out QRM (Amateur talk for interference).

      They have a whole army of Amateurs who will gladly do it for them. It's a game of sorts...

      --
      BMO

  14. OH NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MY WIFI IS DOWN, ALL IS LOST, ALL IS LOS........, oh wait, [rummage, rummage, rummage, Ethernet cable found, *click*, *click*] never mind, fixed it.

  15. duh!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if this is what passes by as a phd thesis, my dog could hold at least 3. it seriously took a phd student to figure out that wifi is easy to jam. just go to an apartment block where everyone has wifi....your throughoutput drops to nil, add to it a couple of microwaves and a few cordless phones + baby monitors and say goodbye to your wireless communications. seriously standards for phds are really low

    1. Re:duh!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does it say that's his thesis? And could describe the field equations of the signal?

  16. Serious consequence? Please by cdrudge · · Score: 2

    With the above mentioned networks being crucial to the functioning of many IoT devices and systems - home security systems, car locks, baby monitors, and so on - it should be obvious that the fact that these attacks can be performed so easily and cheaply may lead to serious consequences.

    If your IoT device, home security system, car locks, baby monitors, and so on have serious consequences if their crucial wireless network is unavailable, you have a serious design flaw in your system. At worst, it should result in the particular thing not communicating and you resort to a back up method, such as say a door lock, a key, or going and checking on your kid in person...

    1. Re:Serious consequence? Please by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My setup has minor consequences. If something's jamming the WiFi, I can't watch streaming video in the TV room, or do anything from downstairs. It's still illegal, it's just that I won't be suing the jammer (if the jammer can be found) for further damages.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. Spoiler Alert: No Code by argee · · Score: 1

    About 20 minutes into the presentation, the guy demoes it (works!), and then says that
    he is not releasing the code because it could cause trouble.

    Duh!

    1. Re:Spoiler Alert: No Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do this with most wifi routers, most android phones and probably anything that allows itself to be turned into a wifi hotspot. There is nothing new here, in my youth there was a super edgy "hacker" magazine that was like q2459 or something and they had a version of this in practically every issue that was cheaper and much more effective.

    2. Re:Spoiler Alert: No Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't mean 2600 do you?

  18. Better For The Gander by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

    On the flip side, anyone who does do this with said $15 dongle can consequently be located by a resourceful and pissed-off individual using an even cheaper dongle, who can then decide on the proper payba...er...action to take.

  19. Would be amazing if you could do it selectively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would pay good money to jam all wifi for all devices except mine. Would be great in crowded areas.

  20. This used to be cheaper (total cost).. by brokenin2 · · Score: 1

    Dealextreme used to sell a wifi/cell phone/bluetooth blocker for something like $10.. I have a friend that bought one.. I just went looking though, and it looks like they don't cell them anymore.. Maybe they're trying to seem to be more of a legitimate company or something..

  21. No extras needed: multicast on Wi-Fi by iTrawl · · Score: 0

    Just send multicast packets over Wi-Fi and every Wi-Fi network in range will suddenly become unusable. I accidentally did that using VLC as a streaming server! It took a few occurrences at different times to finally click on the coincidence.

    I still have no idea why that happens. I have a blurry memory that says that the AP drops to "b" mode for multicast, but no reason was given.

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
  22. Prisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prisons should consult with this guy. There is an epidemic of prison visitors in the US sneaking in cell phones inside condoms jammed up the visitors' rectums.

    They could run USB cables above the cells and put the jammer at the end of each cable.

    1. Re:Prisons by omnichad · · Score: 1

      There is an epidemic of prison visitors in the US sneaking in cell phones inside condoms jammed up the visitors' rectums.

      Hope that's flip phones and not phablets.

    2. Re:Prisons by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      There is an epidemic of prison visitors in the US sneaking in cell phones inside condoms jammed up the visitors' rectums.

      Hope that's flip phones and not phablets.

      "Uh, excuse me warden, my butt is getting a text"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  23. or by superwiz · · Score: 1

    You can just turn your microwave oven. It'll do a pretty good job of interfering with WiFI frequency (which is in the microwave band)

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re: or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But my Wi-Fi is 5GHz

    2. Re: or by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Does it help? The total amplitude of the ovens is so much higher than anything any wifi antenna should ever put out (without frying anyone standing next to it) that what the oven leaks into its surrounding band should be enough to interfere with most WiFi channels. http://mars.nasa.gov/MPF/rover...

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  24. It's not just brute force jamming by Zeorge · · Score: 2

    Brute force is easy. From the article, he flashed the $15 dongle to take priority over the WLAN and prevents others from TX'ing. He's not just raising the noise floor. This makes it a little harder to detect. I guess if you had a spectrum analyzer or were looking at the RSSI you would see an abnormally strong signal. If you were paying attention to your WLAN, you'd see a device that -potentially- wasn't part of the WLAN broadcasting and supressing everyone else. I'm at work so I can't read more of it, but, I'd like to know if these were open networks with no type of WEP or WPA2 or MAC filtering versus ones that had that utilized. Be interesting if a rogue device could inject packets into the WLAN without seeing any data but just taking priority.

    "During his recent presentation at BruCON, Vanhoef explained that by modifying the dongle's firmware he was able to force the target networks to always give priority to the device's transmissions. If the device is made to transmit continuously, it means that all other devices won't be able to, making the channel effectively unusable.

    His attempts at selective jamming (blocking specific packets) have been less successful, and he concluded that 100% reliable selective jamming is not possible."

    1. Re:It's not just brute force jamming by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      So, to paraphrase, '802.11whatever is a 'listen then talk' protocol, so, logic-ally speaking, if we comment out the 'listen' part of the code, it will just talk, and nothing else will talk! GENIUS!'

      Guess what! Ethernet expects only the device who has a given IP to respond to arp requests! If we respond anyway, there will be CHAOS! BWAHAHAHA!

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:It's not just brute force jamming by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "So, to paraphrase, '802.11whatever is a 'listen then talk' protocol, so, logic-ally speaking, if we comment out the 'listen' part of the code, it will just talk, and nothing else will talk! GENIUS!'"

      Every girl could have told you that.

  25. Not brute force by Zeorge · · Score: 1

    None of the fun lab equipment is used. Well, maybe there is some brute force. But he's basically flashed the dongle to inject packets into the WLAN and take over via priority. This suppressed the other devices from transmitting so it's a little more elegant than jamming. If the attacker was in WLAN proximity, did not use an amplifier, then it would be hard to detect without packet inspection.

    1. Re:Not brute force by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      it would be best used to attack lte-u deployments just replace the costly amplifier with a cantenna and keep the channe(s) busy..

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  26. Re:Jamming cell traffic by mwehle · · Score: 1

    Now we're talking.

    I see what you did there.

    --
    Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
  27. Trembler coil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For $15, approximately, (certainly for less than the cost of the Dongle, the RaspPi, and the amplifier) you can get something like a Model T spark coil (aka ignition coil, trembler coil, etc) and a battery and generate enough RF noise to swamp anything in the vicinity.

    For extra fun, google pocket tesla coil or portable tesla coil.

    1. Re:Trembler coil by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      For $15, approximately, (certainly for less than the cost of the Dongle, the RaspPi, and the amplifier) you can get something like a Model T spark coil (aka ignition coil, trembler coil, etc) and a battery and generate enough RF noise to swamp anything in the vicinity.

      For extra fun, google pocket tesla coil or portable tesla coil.

      model t spark coils are expensive these days, particularly if they come with any sort of guarantee of functionality.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  28. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, and I thought someone discovered that a cheap WiFi-frequency transmitter + a high-gain antenna + constantly transmitting + malicious intent + aiming it at the target = denial-of-service attack 10 or 15 years ago.

    My mistake. Please give this guy a Nobel Prize for his clearly groundbreaking research.

  29. Apropos quote from Dave the Barbarian by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Narrator: Thinking quickly, Dave constructs a homemade megaphone using only a squirrel, some string and a megaphone.

  30. Well. . . . by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

    I suppose walking about with a dongle sized piece of hardware is a bit more subtle than toting around a microwave attached to a backpack. :D

    1. Re:Well. . . . by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I suppose walking about with a dongle sized piece of hardware is a bit more subtle than toting around a microwave attached to a backpack. :D

      if you get caught walking around with your dongle sized piece of hardware, you could end up on the sex offender list.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  31. Wirecutters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about just cutting the power line..

  32. You can get a ticket to prison with a $0 rock too. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    There is nothing intelligent about these sort of simple disruptive attacks, they are nothing more than a form of temporary vandalism. I could probably to a hell of a lot more damage with the guts of an appliance found in most kitchens, but would it prove I am smart? No.

  33. OH MY GOD!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SOMEONE DISCOVERED HOW TO JAM A RADIO SIGNAL BY EMITTING A HIGHER POWER SIGNAL ON THE SAME FREQUENCY, THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING, ELVIS SHOT JFK!!!!!

    The frontpage of Slashdot is looking more like the news feed on Facebook every day. People posting stupid shit without the competence to understand the basic concepts involved.

  34. ACSAC 2014 article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We hope these results aid in the creation of better countermeasures, and motivate
    people to only use the more secure (AES)-CCMP."
    https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/473761/1/acsac2014.pdf

  35. ohheck by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    i bet i could do it with a lamp somebody threw away because the cord sparks like crazy where it attaches to the plug.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  36. Chuck Finley - Attorney at Law by manandmachineguy · · Score: 1

    I think I saw this on an episode of Burn Notice...

    --
    Wash your keyboard, its kinda gross.