Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #211847 > unrolled thread

Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-07-29 12:50 +0200
    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-29 13:00 +0200
      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-07-29 14:00 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-29 14:50 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-07-29 15:40 +0200
          Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-07-30 11:30 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-29 16:30 +0200
          Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-07-29 17:20 +0200
      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2019-07-29 14:10 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-29 15:20 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-07-29 15:40 +0200
          Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-29 15:50 +0200
            Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-07-29 16:10 +0200
              Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-29 17:20 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-07-29 18:00 +0200
            Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-29 16:30 +0200
            Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-07-29 16:40 +0200
          Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-29 16:50 +0200
          Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-07-30 05:00 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-29 17:30 +0200
          Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-29 21:50 +0200
            Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-29 22:00 +0200
              Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-29 22:10 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-29 23:10 +0200
              Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? ghe <ghe@slsware.net> - 2019-07-29 23:30 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-30 00:10 +0200
                  Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-30 03:50 +0200
                    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-30 09:00 +0200
                    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-07-30 13:20 +0200
                      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-30 14:50 +0200
              Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-30 14:40 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-07-30 15:00 +0200
                  Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-30 21:20 +0200
                    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-30 21:30 +0200
                      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-31 00:30 +0200
                    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-07-30 21:50 +0200
                      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-31 00:30 +0200
                      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? "Martin McCormick" <martin.m@suddenlink.net> - 2019-08-01 14:40 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-30 15:50 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-30 16:20 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-30 16:30 +0200
                  3 phase power (was Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-07-30 17:40 +0200
                    Re: 3 phase power (was Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-07-31 09:50 +0200
                      Re: 3 phase power (was Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-31 10:00 +0200
                    Re: 3 phase power (was Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-01 15:50 +0200
                      Re: 3 phase power (was Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-08-01 19:10 +0200
                        Re: 3 phase power (was Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-01 21:50 +0200
                          Re: 3 phase power (was Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2019-08-01 22:20 +0200
                        Re: 3 phase power (was Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-08-01 23:20 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-08-03 18:30 +0200
                  Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-08-03 20:20 +0200
                    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-08-03 21:00 +0200
          Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-29 23:00 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-07-29 17:30 +0200
      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-07-31 01:10 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-31 09:10 +0200
          Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-02 16:20 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-31 09:50 +0200
          Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-07-31 14:00 +0200
            Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-31 15:10 +0200
              Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-07-31 15:40 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-31 15:50 +0200
                  Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2019-08-01 03:20 +0200
                    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-01 04:40 +0200
                  Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-01 04:40 +0200
                    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-08-01 08:20 +0200
              Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-01 04:40 +0200
                Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-08-01 08:40 +0200
                  Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-01 08:50 +0200
                    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-08-01 10:00 +0200
                      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-02 05:20 +0200
                  Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-02 05:20 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-07-31 22:20 +0200
    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-29 17:00 +0200
    Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-07-29 17:20 +0200
      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-07-29 18:00 +0200
        PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-07-29 19:00 +0200
          Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-29 23:10 +0200
            Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-07-30 05:20 +0200
              Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-03 17:50 +0200
          Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-08-04 14:00 +0200
            Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-04 14:10 +0200
              Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-08-04 17:20 +0200
                Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-08-05 18:50 +0200
                  Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-05 22:00 +0200
                    Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-06 07:50 +0200
                      Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-06 15:40 +0200
                        Re: PROGRESS!! - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-07 08:50 +0200
        Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-07-29 19:10 +0200
      Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-29 18:40 +0200
    Useful links - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-08-03 15:20 +0200
      Re: Useful links - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Lee <ler762@gmail.com> - 2019-08-03 17:00 +0200
        Re: Useful links - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-08-03 17:30 +0200
          Re: Useful links - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-03 17:50 +0200
            Re: Useful links - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-08-03 21:20 +0200
          Re: Useful links - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-03 18:20 +0200
      Re: Useful links - was {Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?} David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-03 17:40 +0200

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#211847 — Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Sneakernet for file transfer has become annoying.
Ethernet is undesirable in my environment so I am only interested is 
wireless.
I have only a few machines a max of 6' apart.
My usage would typically be peer-to-peer but I want to communicate 
between any two machines.
My web connectivity is via a T-Mobile WiFi Hotspot (WiFi turned off).
I run Debian 9.8.

I've just begun reading - primarily Wikipedia articles and some links 
from them.  My primary question is "What should I be reading?" in order 
to ask appropriate questions. Specificallty "What?" and "Why?" much more 
than "Howto?".

A concern is security issues. Bluetooth, being short range, may thus 
have an advantage. Speed is not an issue for my expected usage. (I was 
one of my ISP's last 6 dial-up clients ;)

TIA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#211848

	Hi.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:40:40AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> A concern is security issues. Bluetooth, being short range, may thus
> have an advantage. Speed is not an issue for my expected usage. (I was
> one of my ISP's last 6 dial-up clients ;)

Both have their disadvantages in this regard.

WPA2's (that's your conventional WiFi standard) secure configuration is
fiendishly difficult. 
You have beacon frames that are broadcasted without any encryption.
You have authentication frames that can be intercepted (so WPA
passphrase can be bruteforced).
You have several encryption algorithms, but:
a) They are not equally good.
b) You may have a hardware that lack support for a good ones.

They do have WPA3 that promises to fix all this, but ... you and I do
not have the hardware for it yet.


Bluetooth, on the other hand, is a security nightmare.
First, they got reasonable encryption in 4.0 standard version, and it's
optional. You have certain "profiles" that willingly elect to forbid
encryption.
Second, authentication aka "pairing" (which is optional too). In its
most common form authentication key is a four-digit number, with most
devices preset to four zeroes.


In short, nothing beats Ethernet in your typical household for
conventional computing needs. Smartphones and tablets may convince you
to use WiFi, but these devices are insecure anyway, so there's no loss.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211852

On 07/29/2019 05:57 AM, Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:40:40AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> A concern is security issues. Bluetooth, being short range, may thus
>> have an advantage. Speed is not an issue for my expected usage. (I was
>> one of my ISP's last 6 dial-up clients ;)
> 
> Both have their disadvantages in this regard.
> 
> WPA2's (that's your conventional WiFi standard) secure configuration is
> fiendishly difficult.
> You have beacon frames that are broadcasted without any encryption.
> You have authentication frames that can be intercepted (so WPA
> passphrase can be bruteforced).
> You have several encryption algorithms, but:
> a) They are not equally good.
> b) You may have a hardware that lack support for a good ones.

Makes me glad I didn't even consider enabling WiFi on the Hotspot ;}
Why do I have a Hotspot then? I needed cell connectivity and it was all 
I could find locally at the time (rural SW MO). I really wanted a USB 
cell modem. We won't go into what the other cell providers wanted cram 
down my craw.

> 
> They do have WPA3 that promises to fix all this, but ... you and I do
> not have the hardware for it yet.
> 
> 
> Bluetooth, on the other hand, is a security nightmare.
> First, they got reasonable encryption in 4.0 standard version, and it's
> optional.

Is it *my* option? Or is it builtin and an option only in the sense that 
a manufacturer can claim standard compliance with/without encryption.

> You have certain "profiles" that willingly elect to forbid
> encryption.

Similarly is the "profile" used my choice?

> Second, authentication aka "pairing" (which is optional too). In its
> most common form authentication key is a four-digit number, with most
> devices preset to four zeroes.

As the only devices will be PCs, is that number my choice?

> 
> 
> In short, nothing beats Ethernet in your typical household for
> conventional computing needs.

Who said anything about *typical*? <grin> *ROFL*
I had considered Ethernet over a year ago. Went so far as to purchase an 
8-port switch. Then realized there was not space on my work surface for 
the cables.

> Smartphones and tablets may convince you
> to use WiFi, but these devices are insecure anyway, so there's no loss.

Snicker

I started out as a prospective E.E. almost 60 years ago. Until 
retirement I was almost completely a consumer. That's why I'm looking 
more for "What" and "Why" than "Howto".

This morning I did a search with slightly different terms. Down about 
three layers in from a fresh hit I found a reasonable description of how 
my goal system might work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_area_network says in part:
> A Bluetooth WPAN is also called a piconet, and is composed of up
> to 8 active devices in a master-slave relationship (a very large
> number of additional devices can be connected in "parked" mode).
> The first Bluetooth device in the piconet is the master, and all
> other devices are slaves that communicate with the master.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211855

	Hi.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 06:57:48AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 07/29/2019 05:57 AM, Reco wrote:
> > 	Hi.
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:40:40AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > A concern is security issues. Bluetooth, being short range, may thus
> > > have an advantage. Speed is not an issue for my expected usage. (I was
> > > one of my ISP's last 6 dial-up clients ;)
> > 
> > Both have their disadvantages in this regard.
> > 
> > WPA2's (that's your conventional WiFi standard) secure configuration is
> > fiendishly difficult.
> > You have beacon frames that are broadcasted without any encryption.
> > You have authentication frames that can be intercepted (so WPA
> > passphrase can be bruteforced).
> > You have several encryption algorithms, but:
> > a) They are not equally good.
> > b) You may have a hardware that lack support for a good ones.
> 
> Makes me glad I didn't even consider enabling WiFi on the Hotspot ;}
> Why do I have a Hotspot then?

Because it's easier to buy a consumer-grade router that has WiFi?
Personally I blame modern kids who cannot live five minutes without
looking at a cellphone ;)


> > Bluetooth, on the other hand, is a security nightmare.
> > First, they got reasonable encryption in 4.0 standard version, and it's
> > optional.
> 
> Is it *my* option? Or is it builtin and an option only in the sense
> that a manufacturer can claim standard compliance with/without
> encryption.

It's in the "do I encrypt whatever I send on a radiowave, or it's a
cleartext" sense.


> > You have certain "profiles" that willingly elect to forbid
> > encryption.
> 
> Similarly is the "profile" used my choice?

Bluetooth "profiles" are like application level protocols.
You want to send files - that's OPP (Object Push Protocol).
You want to read texts from your phone - that's MAP (Message Access
Protocol).
And they have like three dozens of those. Some profiles require
encryption, some forbid it.


> > Second, authentication aka "pairing" (which is optional too). In its
> > most common form authentication key is a four-digit number, with most
> > devices preset to four zeroes.
> 
> As the only devices will be PCs, is that number my choice?

Yup. They even allow to use eight digits numbers in bluez (Linux
bluetooth stack). Does not make it really better from a security
standpoint, but still.


> > In short, nothing beats Ethernet in your typical household for
> > conventional computing needs.
> 
> Who said anything about *typical*? <grin> *ROFL*
> I had considered Ethernet over a year ago. Went so far as to purchase
> an 8-port switch. Then realized there was not space on my work surface
> for the cables.

Ceilings, walls (my choice), even water tubes sometimes. We're living in
a 3D world, might as well use it to an advantage.


> This morning I did a search with slightly different terms. Down about
> three layers in from a fresh hit I found a reasonable description of
> how my goal system might work.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_area_network says in part:
> > A Bluetooth WPAN is also called a piconet, and is composed of up
> > to 8 active devices in a master-slave relationship (a very large
> > number of additional devices can be connected in "parked" mode).
> > The first Bluetooth device in the piconet is the master, and all
> > other devices are slaves that communicate with the master.

I use this on semi-weekly basis. And every time I do it brings back
memories of that 56k V.90 modem I had 20 years ago.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211857

Richard Owlett wrote: 
> On 07/29/2019 05:57 AM, Reco wrote:
> > 
> > In short, nothing beats Ethernet in your typical household for
> > conventional computing needs.
> 
> Who said anything about *typical*? <grin> *ROFL*
> I had considered Ethernet over a year ago. Went so far as to purchase an
> 8-port switch. Then realized there was not space on my work surface for the
> cables.

Cables come in a variety of lengths, you know. If everything is
within six feet, there's no reason not to buy cables in their
standard sizes of 1, 3, 6, 7, and 10 feet as necessary.

They're cheap.

They're very secure, especially compared to anything
broadcasting in radio land.



> This morning I did a search with slightly different terms. Down about three
> layers in from a fresh hit I found a reasonable description of how my goal
> system might work.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_area_network says in part:

These operate at extremely low speed and are generally a
terrible choice.

However, you have a history of trying to avoid the good
decisions that people steer you towards, so I encourage you to
give Bluetooth a miss entirely and go for an infrared LAN with
a ceiling reflector. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211907

Dan Ritter wrote:

> These operate at extremely low speed and are generally a
> terrible choice.
> 
> However, you have a history of trying to avoid the good
> decisions that people steer you towards, so I encourage you to
> give Bluetooth a miss entirely and go for an infrared LAN with
> a ceiling reflector.

:D hahahaha - this made my day - good one (y)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211863

Richard Owlett wrote:
> A concern is security issues. Bluetooth, being short range, may thus
> have an advantage.

Is there any real chance that criminals could get close enough to
intercept your Bluetooth?  Could they do anything nefarious with it if
they did?  I'm assuming that you intend to use it for your machines, not
for talking to your bank.

Note that you are free to add application-level encryption.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211869

On 07/29/2019 09:21 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> Richard Owlett wrote:
>> A concern is security issues. Bluetooth, being short range, may thus
>> have an advantage.
> 
> Is there any real chance that criminals could get close enough to
> intercept your Bluetooth?

I was viewing its short range nature as just a additional layer.

>  Could they do anything nefarious with it if they did?

What I consider personal will be on my primary machine only.

>  I'm assuming that you intend to use it for your machines, not
> for talking to your bank.

My hobby is trying to create an ideal Debian install. >90% of what will 
being transferred is in a Debian repository. Most of the remainder would 
be from FOSS or Public Domain sources.

> 
> Note that you are free to add application-level encryption.

Assumed ;}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211853

On 7/29/2019 12:57 PM, Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:40:40AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> A concern is security issues. Bluetooth, being short range, may thus
>> have an advantage. Speed is not an issue for my expected usage. (I was
>> one of my ISP's last 6 dial-up clients ;)
>
> Both have their disadvantages in this regard.
>
> WPA2's (that's your conventional WiFi standard) secure configuration is
> fiendishly difficult.
> You have beacon frames that are broadcasted without any encryption.
> You have authentication frames that can be intercepted (so WPA
> passphrase can be bruteforced).
> You have several encryption algorithms, but:
> a) They are not equally good.
> b) You may have a hardware that lack support for a good ones.
>
> They do have WPA3 that promises to fix all this, but ... you and I do
> not have the hardware for it yet.
>
>
> Bluetooth, on the other hand, is a security nightmare.
> First, they got reasonable encryption in 4.0 standard version, and it's
> optional. You have certain "profiles" that willingly elect to forbid
> encryption.
> Second, authentication aka "pairing" (which is optional too). In its
> most common form authentication key is a four-digit number, with most
> devices preset to four zeroes.
>
>
> In short, nothing beats Ethernet in your typical household for
> conventional computing needs. Smartphones and tablets may convince you
> to use WiFi, but these devices are insecure anyway, so there's no loss.
>

What about Powerline (PLC), any better then Wireless with regard to
security?

--
John Doe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211856

	Hi.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 02:05:02PM +0200, john doe wrote:
> > In short, nothing beats Ethernet in your typical household for
> > conventional computing needs. Smartphones and tablets may convince you
> > to use WiFi, but these devices are insecure anyway, so there's no loss.
> >
> 
> What about Powerline (PLC), any better then Wireless with regard to
> security?

It has wires, so it's no worse or no better than Ethernet. Never seen it
in a real life though.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211858

john doe wrote: 
> What about Powerline (PLC), any better then Wireless with regard to
> security?

All the useful Powerline devices are either connected to your
hosts via WiFi or ethernet, so that leaves them out.

In a single-family house, Powerline is about as secure as wired
ethernet: you need to come in and plug something in to spy on
it.

In an apartment block or other shared-infrastructure situation,
Powerline is potentially as insecure as WiFi.

Most people use Powerline as a substitute for running a single
ethernet cable across a house: it's pretty good but not perfect.

Multistation Powerline is less effective.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211860

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:34:25 -0400
Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:


> 
> In a single-family house, Powerline is about as secure as wired
> ethernet: you need to come in and plug something in to spy on
> it.

Most people won't have RF blocking filters at their house electricity
inlet, so there may be some leakage to the next house that's on the
same phase.

I can get a reliable connection on the end of about 100ft of house and
extension cable, so I wouldn't be surprised to be able to find a signal
in another house. 

Presumably, when we speak of security here, we're not talking about
accidental reception, wi-fi WEP would be sufficient to prevent this,
but a deliberate attempt to break in. We could assume that someone
trying to get into a power-line link would be able to amplify the
signals involved.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211861

Joe wrote: 
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:34:25 -0400
> Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > In a single-family house, Powerline is about as secure as wired
> > ethernet: you need to come in and plug something in to spy on
> > it.
> 
> Most people won't have RF blocking filters at their house electricity
> inlet, so there may be some leakage to the next house that's on the
> same phase.
> 
> I can get a reliable connection on the end of about 100ft of house and
> extension cable, so I wouldn't be surprised to be able to find a signal
> in another house. 
 
I went over to my neighbor's house last year and tried it out.
Nothing.

It's possible that we're exceptional.


> Presumably, when we speak of security here, we're not talking about
> accidental reception, wi-fi WEP would be sufficient to prevent this,
> but a deliberate attempt to break in. We could assume that someone
> trying to get into a power-line link would be able to amplify the
> signals involved.

Most single-family homes have an external outlet or two. It
would be quite feasible to install a powerline-to-wifi adapter
there and get access that way.

On the other hand, I leave my wifi open and unsecured, because
it's attached to the outside of my security zones, not the
inside.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211870

On Mon 29 Jul 2019 at 10:05:19 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> Joe wrote: 
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:34:25 -0400 Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > In a single-family house, Powerline is about as secure as wired
> > > ethernet: you need to come in and plug something in to spy on
> > > it.
> > 
> > Most people won't have RF blocking filters at their house electricity
> > inlet, so there may be some leakage to the next house that's on the
> > same phase.
> > 
> > I can get a reliable connection on the end of about 100ft of house and
> > extension cable, so I wouldn't be surprised to be able to find a signal
> > in another house. 
>  
> I went over to my neighbor's house last year and tried it out.
> Nothing.
> 
> It's possible that we're exceptional.

Presumably you checked that you share the transformer? We get our
power from the poles on the other side of the street. Our neighbours
on each side get theirs from the rear easement which makes a 3-blocks
length journey for any signal.

> > Presumably, when we speak of security here, we're not talking about
> > accidental reception, wi-fi WEP would be sufficient to prevent this,
> > but a deliberate attempt to break in. We could assume that someone
> > trying to get into a power-line link would be able to amplify the
> > signals involved.
> 
> Most single-family homes have an external outlet or two. It
> would be quite feasible to install a powerline-to-wifi adapter
> there and get access that way.

Good point. People might not notice the device. Our external outlets
run off switches inside the house—the architects thought this was
remarkable.

> On the other hand, I leave my wifi open and unsecured, because
> it's attached to the outside of my security zones, not the
> inside.

I don't quite understand. What do you use the wifi for? And what
runs inside your security zones?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211875

David Wright wrote: 
> On Mon 29 Jul 2019 at 10:05:19 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> > It's possible that we're exceptional.
> 
> Presumably you checked that you share the transformer? We get our
> power from the poles on the other side of the street. Our neighbours
> on each side get theirs from the rear easement which makes a 3-blocks
> length journey for any signal.

My next-door neighbor is fed from the next pole along on the
same overhead line.


> > On the other hand, I leave my wifi open and unsecured, because
> > it's attached to the outside of my security zones, not the
> > inside.
> 
> I don't quite understand. What do you use the wifi for? And what
> runs inside your security zones?

The wifi is for mobile devices, of course. Phones, tablets,
laptops. If they want to talk to the house servers, they need
to use SSH or a VPN to get in, or have the same minimal access
that the rest of the Internet has to defined services.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211862

Joe writes:
> Most people won't have RF blocking filters at their house electricity
> inlet, so there may be some leakage to the next house that's on the
> same phase.

But if you are the only one on your transformer (common in low-density
areas) you are safe from that.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211865

On 29.07.19 14:44, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:34:25 -0400
> Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> > 
> > In a single-family house, Powerline is about as secure as wired
> > ethernet: you need to come in and plug something in to spy on
> > it.
> 
> Most people won't have RF blocking filters at their house electricity
> inlet, so there may be some leakage to the next house that's on the
> same phase.

Several of those clamp-on ferrite noise suppression cores, of a size to
fill a partly closed fist, would do some good without requiring wiring
alteration.

> I can get a reliable connection on the end of about 100ft of house and
> extension cable, so I wouldn't be surprised to be able to find a signal
> in another house. 

And ethernet cable is twisted pair, minimising radiation. Power wiring
is just parallel conductors, so a sniffer has more signal to pick up.
Additionally, transmitted power levels in a Powerline network would
likely be higher than on a clean ethernet cable, due to the intermittent
electrical noise found on power circuits, due to switching loads,
motors, etc. (It's either that or retransmit corrupted packets.)

The analog designers in an R&D lab I worked in about 40 years ago spent
their lunch hours on a powerline intercom. Pushing a good clean signal
through the noise was a challenge.

> Presumably, when we speak of security here, we're not talking about
> accidental reception, wi-fi WEP would be sufficient to prevent this,
> but a deliberate attempt to break in. We could assume that someone
> trying to get into a power-line link would be able to amplify the
> signals involved.

The street wiring would act as an extension of the antenna provided by
the house wiring, and with much larger loop area between conductors,
radiate much better. Acting against that is masking RF noise from
everything else in the street, requiring either selectivity or at least
a capacitive connection in the street or the comfort of a neighbour's
house.

But even if you have a wireless keyboard, the your passwords are out there
several times per day, I figure.

Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211866

On Mon 29 Jul 2019 at 09:34:25 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> john doe wrote: 
> > What about Powerline (PLC), any better then Wireless with regard to
> > security?
> 
> All the useful Powerline devices are either connected to your
> hosts via WiFi or ethernet, so that leaves them out.

Most PCs require power, so one could strap the cat5 cable to
the power cable to keep it tidy. (Some of my cat5 cables have lost
their locking tabs, so I put a bag tie round the keyboard and
cat5 plugs so that the cat5 doesn't pop out.)

> In a single-family house, Powerline is about as secure as wired
> ethernet: you need to come in and plug something in to spy on
> it.
> 
> In an apartment block or other shared-infrastructure situation,
> Powerline is potentially as insecure as WiFi.

It's possible that households sharing a pole transformer might
also pick up the signals. It does claim to be encrypted, though.

> Most people use Powerline as a substitute for running a single
> ethernet cable across a house: it's pretty good but not perfect.
> 
> Multistation Powerline is less effective.

It works well in this house. The router feeds a Powerline 1200
(1-port), and its twin (you buy them in pairs) runs a server in
the basement. A Powerline 500 (2-port) runs two PCs in the attic,
and its twin is in the other half of the house, across a bridge.
That handles a Roku, with one spare port. It came as a surprise
to me that the two models interoperated. I set them up in the
kitchen, where there are most outlets. You have to press their
buttons within a limited time so they can all share their keys.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211902

On Monday, July 29, 2019 09:34:25 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> john doe wrote:
> > What about Powerline (PLC), any better then Wireless with regard to
> > security?
> 
> All the useful Powerline devices are either connected to your
> hosts via WiFi or ethernet, so that leaves them out.
> 
> In a single-family house, Powerline is about as secure as wired
> ethernet: you need to come in and plug something in to spy on
> it.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.  I live in a suburban area with single 
family homes on 1/3 to 1/2 acre lots.  My across-the-street neighbor had 
children around the same time we did, and our baby monitors interacted -- we 
could hear their's, the could here our's.  (Actually, we lived on opposite 
sides of a cul-de-sac circle, so probably 150' from their front door to our 
front door.)

The electrical feed for the entire street (10 homes, maybe a few more around 
the corner) are fed from the same transformer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211871

They don't have to be on the same branch circuit: just on the same
"phase"[1].  There is probably a gadget available that bridges the
signal between phases.


[1] They aren't really phases but everyone calls them that.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web