Wardriving for wireless LANs 2

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Markus Kuhn
> Sent: 02 June 2002 13:35
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Wardriving for wireless LANs 2
>
>
> Graham Murray wrote on 2002-06-01 22:04 UTC:
> > "Owen Lewis" <oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes:
> >
> > > Do bear in mind that this is an ISM band - which makes the
> 'licensing' of
> > > equipment and operators a quaint thought. That said, and as
> others have
> > > remarked, use of the band is not entirely unregulated.
>
> Keep in mind that RLANs are communication systems and not ISM equipment.
> As such, the devices do certainly need type approval, even in the ISM
> band. Not being ISM equipment, RLANs might still be covered in part by
> the Wireless Telegraphy Act, even if you don't need a WTA transmitting
> license, independent of which frequency band they use.


Therein lies the confusion for some. Return to the root of the this thread.
Yes, RLANs are required to be a meet standard specification. However other
equipment, that may be lawfully used in the same band, does not. The point
of in discussion is not the operation of RLAN systems but their
'interception' by other equipment (which may or may not be based on a type
approved RLAN unit). Any one operating receiving equipment covering 2.4 GHz
and within range of an RLAN will, sho' nuff, receive its signal.


> > Though as there is an ITU plenary this year, is there any possibility
> > of the use of this band (or some other) by wireless LAN etc being
> > formalised internationally?
>
> The 2.4-2.5 GHz band was specifically added by ITU to the ISM class a
> long time ago for physical reasons: It is a good absorption frequency of
> water molecules. Anyone else in that band will therefore have to cope
> with the millions of microwave ovens that broadcast on it. RLAN
> manufacturers are unlikely to be able to force the kitchen appliance
> industry to a different band.

Unless it were to the hydroxyl line. But the astronomers might not like
that. It seems likely that it is RLAN that will migrate out of the 2.4 GHz
band, given time. As for microwave ovens (how did they get in here) who
cares.

> The Europe-wide type approval requirements for RLANs in the microwave
> oven band are already defined in ETS 300 328 and limit for instance
> power to 0.1 W. This standard is also applied in the UK.

I rather took Graham's point to be that some countries (France?) have
assigned the 2.4 GHz band for other purposes and do not offer it for private
use, incl RLANs. It will take ITU coordination to avoid the existence of
such 'black holes' in the future.

> "Owen Lewis" wrote on 2002-06-01 21:58 UTC:
> > The 'fear' the police in particular have for both the
> confidentiality and
> > the survivability of their communications is largely misplaced. To the
> > extent that the fear is real, they should address themselves to
> a sufficient
> > remedy.
>
> It was my understanding that the police, MI5, etc. in the UK are already
> in the progress of introducing digital encrypted TETRA radios.

True. Public Safety Radio Communications System (PSRCS). But that does not
answer their concerns. Their main concern is denial of service attacks, to
which they are about to become more rather than less vulnerable. Something
about eggs and baskets comes to mind.

My point was not so much that one cannot eavesdrop milcomms but that their
*tactical* comms are really quite hard to find and, when one finds some,
then it is skilled, painstaking work to make much sense of it even if it is
transmitted in clear. This is not so for the police who, these days, see
themselves as "enforcing the peace" and view all others as "civilians" yet
who continue to operate "tactical" communications in a manner that might
suit a large taxi firm or St John's Ambulance. Improvement has less to do
with technology than with a disciplined professional approach to the concept
and operation of police radio systems.

My point was that the police have acted to have made unlawful what is mainly
harmless and, to the extent that it may be harmful to their proper interests
changing the application of the law does no good whatsoever. Doubtless,
convincing the courts to act to their interpretation of what comprises
proper Laura Norder gives them a nice warm fuzzy feeling - but it does damn
all else.  The police cannot have it both ways. Either there is a palpable
threat to the survivability of their communications or there is not. If
there is, then it is to improved operational procedures & tactics (and
perhaps a few other measures), but not to law, to which they should look to
diminish the threat.

Owen