$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi devices (2015)

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by jcrawfordor on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @12:01PM (#13319911)

Yes, it is generally understood that the FCC rulings on WiFi jamming continue to permit WIPS/WIDS systems that actively mitigate rogue APs that appear to pose a security threat, and broadcasting your SSID without authorization would be a good example of this.

There was quite a bit of talk about this in the WIPS industry after these fines, and while I don't think the FCC has really made a clear clarification on the issue, the vendors have all put out statements that are similar variations on "it's okay for matching SSIDs" and I don't think there has been any contest to this. Vendors do recommend that you be careful that active mitigation will not impact APs operating off your property, implicitly even if they are broadcasting your SSID.

In general I think the FCC is taking an intent approach to this, from the security side - their rulings on WiFi jamming cases have generally specifically mentioned the lack of a reasonable security justification.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by closeparen on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @12:30PM (#13320184)

This is interesting, because SSIDs are not callsigns and not allocated or registered anywhere. Who's to say the enterprise network's claim on the SSID is more legitimate than the attacker's?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by syshum on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @12:54PM (#13320426)

If you are at a HolidayInn, and connect to a HolidayInn SSID then a reasonable person would expect that to be assocated with HolidayInn Chain of Hotels, that is where HolidayInn would have a more legitimate Claim to the HolidayInn SSID then some random Person

Trademarks, Fraud, etc could be the legal basis for this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by Analemma_ on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @12:50PM (#13320394)

There's not really any reason to use the same SSID as the enterprise other than to fool users in to connecting to it for malicious purposes, so targeting networks with the same SSID would probably fall under reasonable security procedures and not subject to this ruling.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by throwaway729 on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @12:50PM (#13320388)

Again, intent comes to the rescue.

[ Parent | on HN ]