RE: WiFi question

["Todd Towles" <toddtowles () brookshires com>]

It shouldn't take a wireless expert to tell you that...he should try it.

I pick up all types of weird stuff all the time in Kismet..and it looks
like something..but I know it isn't..the SSID is "A^B^C^B^D^S^G", or in
other words, trash. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of 
> Paul Schmehl
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:51 AM
> To: Lachniet, Mark
> Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] WiFi question
>
> --On Thursday, November 18, 2004 09:32:27 AM -0600 Paul 
> Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu> wrote:
>
> > --On Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:41:44 PM -0500 "Lachniet, Mark"
> > <mlachniet () sequoianet com> wrote:
> >
> > > Could also be RF interference.  One of my coworkers tracked down a 
> > > particularly interesting problem with motion sensor lights.  Turns 
> > > out the motion sensors worked at the 240mhz range, which has 
> > > resonance at 2.4ghz, or something like that.  Hence every time the 
> > > motion sensor worked, it would spew what the wardriving 
> (site survey) 
> > > apps thought was a zillion different access points with widely 
> > > varying MAC addresses.  I would have though it was a 
> FAKEAP program 
> > > also.  I would assume the same could happen with other 
> interference.  
> > > Having a common SSID would seem to indicate this is not 
> the problem, but just thought I'd mention it.
> > >
> > Thanks for a particularly interesting and potentially useful bit of 
> > information, Mark.
> After forwarding this to our wireless expert, he responded 
> with this (which he has authorized me to forward to the list.)
>
> I find it hard to believe that this is possible.  2.4Ghz is 
> the 9th harmonic.  By the time you get to the 4th harmonic of 
> a signal, even in very very noisy radiators, the strength of 
> the harmonic component of the signal is extremely minute.  
> And, given the fact that one of those sensors (which most 
> likely does *not* truly operate in the 240MHz portion of the
> spectrum) will have a very low output (Part 15 device), the 
> 10th harmonic of that signal will be undetectible as it will 
> be at or below the level of background noise.
>
> Finally, if a device managed to get past all of the 
> improbabilities above, the chances of it *accidentally* 
> creating a signal that looked like an
> 802.11 beacon packet, complete with preamble, header, etc is 
> so off the charts as to be laughable.
>
> One other thing...  If that device truly was operating at 
> 240MHz, then the first harmonic would be 480MHz.  I'm pretty 
> sure that frequency lies in the public service bands (ie 
> fire/police).  If not, its very close.  Given that and the 
> fact that the first harmonic would be much stronger than the 
> 9th harmonic, I'm pretty sure someone in those bands would 
> have complained loudly to the FCC as they don't take 
> intereference issues in those bands lightly.
>
> Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> AVIEN Founding Member
> http://www.utdallas.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html