Re: (Q) wireless networking classroom cheating examples

["Bruhn, Mark S." <mbruhn () INDIANA EDU>]

Darn ham radio operators!  :-)

Yes, I agree that my statements do NOT apply for communications not
provided and managed by the institution.
M.

-- 
Mark S. Bruhn, CISSP

Chief IT Security and Policy Officer
Interim Director, Research and Educational Networking Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (ren-isac () iu edu)

Office of the Vice President for Information Technology and CIO
Indiana University
812-855-0326

Incidents involving IU IT resources: it-incident () iu edu
Complaints/kudos about OVPIT/UITS services: itombuds () iu edu




-----Original Message-----
From: stanislav shalunov [mailto:shalunov () INTERNET2 EDU] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:27 PM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] (Q) wireless networking classroom cheating
examples


"Bruhn, Mark S." <mbruhn () INDIANA EDU> writes:

> Frankly, I doubt that ECPA disallows jamming of the sort being
suggested
> for this context.

I did not think I mentioned ECPA.  Nothing in part 15 of FCC rules
(that is the part that authorizes the use of low-energy type-approved
radiocommunications devices) authorizes the use of such jammers.
Intentional harmful interference is generally not allowed.

> It would be analogous to just unplugging the network so it isn't
> available to users within the scope of that room.

The jamming of 2.4GHz can affect wifi networks nearby and operation of
cordless phones nearby.  To operate, the jammer would need to be
FCC-approved.  On the other hand, one can unplug networks with no
regard of FCC regulations since this generates no radio emissions.

> ECPA would also allow monitoring of the traffic in that room as
> well, in my opinion, if 1) there wasn't supposed to be any network
> traffic emanating from that room anyway, and, more importantly 2) if
> the people were told it was being done in advance.

That may very well be true, if you talk about wifi traffic.

I don't see how ECPA would be applicable to the case of monitoring
traffic of CDMA web-enabled phones.  Monitoring of traffic on cell
phone frequencies is generally not allowed by FCC rules as well (to be
compliant with this rule, radio receivers sold in the US often have
these frequencies blocked out).  Given typical cell phone output of
200-500mW, you'd be monitoring quite a bit larger area than a
room---an area comparable to a network cell size.

> A classroom where an exam was being administered would not be a
> public forum by any stretch, and I think the institution could
> exercise complete control over the facility.

One can't run a jammer of 2.4GHz or listen to traffic on cell phone
frequencies even in the privacy of one's own home.

If one is to look for technological measures to counter exam cheating
that involves radio communications, jammers are not the answer.
Faraday cages might be (it might even be practical to outfit a special
room into one).  But the problem is not technological...

73, KC8VYT

--
Stanislav Shalunov              http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/

Clothes make the man.  Naked people have little or no influence on
society.                                             -- Mark Twain

**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Discussion
Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/memdir/cg/.

**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Discussion Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/memdir/cg/.