$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 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 ]