MIT Demos Wi-Fi That's So High-Tech It Doesn't Need a Password (mic.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article on MIC: Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology want to change how we connect to Wi-Fi. To avoid the cumbersome network login process, a team has come up with a way to grant computers access to a Wi-Fi network based on their proximity to a router. Applied practically, that means you could walk into a cafe and your device would automatically connect to a network -- no annoying password necessary. The same could be true for a home network. When your friends come over, they could immediately be granted access to your Wi-Fi. The paper (PDF), sadly, doesn't offer details on the security aspect. Security researchers advise that one should be careful when connecting to a public Wi-Fi. Say you forget to turn off Wi-Fi on your device, and you walk into a cafe. Your phone will automatically establish a connection with this supposed network. If the network is compromised, plenty of devices will be exposed to attack.

Comments

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like every open access point ever. Range-limited authentication. Great work MIT. Patent that shit.

Re:Cool

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

This is why certain people shouldn't read SlashDot on...April Fools Day.

(In fact, I'm only here today to watch and comment on the OVER-reaction of people who don't realize what SlashDot becomes on April 1.)

Re:Cool

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I have mod points, but using them on April Fools day seems like shooting blanks at the Moon- pointless and/or meaningless.

Which, now that I think of it, makes me wonder if my mod points are actually real or not....

Ah well, perhaps it's best to wait a few days until all the posts about solar-powered slippers and helium-filled paperweights have ceased being posted.

Re:Cool

[MindStalker]

Honestly, I think the idea of being able to specify and exact perimeter does make sense in some cases. Essentially it means "if you can get inside this door, you can access the wifi".
A fun application of this could be having internet and no internet rooms so people A more practical example might be for conferences or conventions where you what to provide free wifi to your guest.

Re:Cool

[phantomfive]

This one is actually pretty good.....instead of being an out-right lie, it seems like something that could be plausible.......and then suddenly you realize not only is it plausible, it's the original configuration for wifi, and you were trolled in a completely different way than what you expected.

In other words, you have to actually think or understand the technology to see why it's a lie.

Re:Cool

[PPH]

This is why certain people shouldn't read SlashDot

Read it? I barely parse the subject line before formulating a response.

Re:Cool

[Noughmad]

Slashdot, much like the language it was originally written in (Perl), is write-only.

Re:3% Fail

[Wycliffe]

TFA: "It works with 97% accuracy"

So hackers only have to try about 30 places on average to get in.

It says 97% accuracy within the building and 10 inch resolution so if that 3% failure rate was double or even triple then that's still accurate to less than 3 feet which would be plenty accurate enough. Honestly, I'm just guessing and 97% accuracy is almost meaningless in this context. It would be much better to say "accurate to 10 inches +/- 5 inches" or something along those lines or "works reliably 97% of the time and 3% of the time someone inside the building can't connect" which would be the other likely failure mode.