Motorola V710
Bluetooth Security Question
Can somebody please explain the security issues surrounding the Bluetooth phone concept?
Let's face it, the wireless networks in most neighborhoods are vulnerable as all heck. There are theives & hackers driving around with WI-FI laptops, downloading financial data from home networks.
Bluetooth uses the same frequency band (2.4 GHz) as most home 802.11b wireless networks. How is BT different, that it raises an alarming concern with Verizon now and not with the other carriers?
Personally, I'm much more concerned about the likelihood of what can already happen to my home LAN than the likelihood that someone will follow my phone around within 30 feet, hack in without the passkey and steal my phone book or something.
Let's face it, the wireless networks in most neighborhoods are vulnerable as all heck. There are theives & hackers driving around with WI-FI laptops, downloading financial data from home networks.
Bluetooth uses the same frequency band (2.4 GHz) as most home 802.11b wireless networks. How is BT different, that it raises an alarming concern with Verizon now and not with the other carriers?
Personally, I'm much more concerned about the likelihood of what can already happen to my home LAN than the likelihood that someone will follow my phone around within 30 feet, hack in without the passkey and steal my phone book or something.
...
First your fears of thieves and hackers driving around stealing information from homes is unwarranted.
The technology exist for this to happen but to date not one person has been even questioned by authorities much less arrested, tried and convicted on obtaining information in such matter.
Even the best home (non commercial) Wi-Fi network only has a range of a 100 feet or so and that is mostly unobscured. If you are in a room, not facing the street or without a outside wall it is unlikely that any Wi-Fi signal could be picked up by someone even parked on the street, much less driving by. I would think if someone was parked in your house holding an antenna out the window pointing it in your direction you would see this.
Even if they...
(continues)
The technology exist for this to happen but to date not one person has been even questioned by authorities much less arrested, tried and convicted on obtaining information in such matter.
Even the best home (non commercial) Wi-Fi network only has a range of a 100 feet or so and that is mostly unobscured. If you are in a room, not facing the street or without a outside wall it is unlikely that any Wi-Fi signal could be picked up by someone even parked on the street, much less driving by. I would think if someone was parked in your house holding an antenna out the window pointing it in your direction you would see this.
Even if they...
(continues)
...
ibeetle said:
The technology exist for this to happen but to date not one person has been even questioned by authorities much less arrested, tried and convicted on obtaining information in such matter.
Then why is Verizon making such a fuss over this Bluetooth security?
It is the main reason the Verizon executives are stating as the delay on the Bluetooth firmware fix.
If eavesdropping was a concern, why not with the headsets they already have in the stores?
...
they are not concerned about our security. they are concerned about the securtiy of there profits. they consider bluetooth a way to get around get it now.
...
goatass is right about what he said.
And there is some I.T. guy with a influential voice at Verizon that probably said something like, "You know all someone would have to do is... and we could get sued"
That word right there "sued" stopped them dead in there tracks.
But goatass is right. Most of it is about profits. And praying upon the average customer that doesn't know and is afraid to ask.
Verizon is the only company that charges what other companies do for free. Nokia even encourages 3rd party development of software by using the symbian operating system. Symbian is kind of the Linux of cell phone operating systems.
Verizon is probably using a version of Pocket PC which is a Microsoft product. After paying all that mone...
(continues)
And there is some I.T. guy with a influential voice at Verizon that probably said something like, "You know all someone would have to do is... and we could get sued"
That word right there "sued" stopped them dead in there tracks.
But goatass is right. Most of it is about profits. And praying upon the average customer that doesn't know and is afraid to ask.
Verizon is the only company that charges what other companies do for free. Nokia even encourages 3rd party development of software by using the symbian operating system. Symbian is kind of the Linux of cell phone operating systems.
Verizon is probably using a version of Pocket PC which is a Microsoft product. After paying all that mone...
(continues)
...
ibeetle said:
Verizon is the only company that charges what other companies do for free. Nokia even encourages 3rd party development of software by using the symbian operating system. Symbian is kind of the Linux of cell phone operating systems.
Verizon is probably using a version of Pocket PC which is a Microsoft product. After paying all that money for licensing to MS they need to recoup there cost. So they find ways to bill there customers.
It is being reported that they are now the only company charging for ring back tones. The caller will now be charged if the reciver have a customized ringer.
Umm.. No. Only the high-end crap uses Microsoft Windows Mobile 2003. Have you seen a Windows-powered...
(continues)
...
wirehead I have read most of your post on a variety of subjects over the last few days.
I really do not know why you post here. Everybody but you is wrong. Nobody here knows what they are talking about.
The truth is you do know somewhat about the things you talk about but you are so worried about being all technical and proving other people wrong that your post are annoying at best.
For example you said I was wrong about ringback tones being customized ringtones to the person making the call. Then you said exactly what I said with different words.
As far a the v710 not using a version of a Microsoft OS I can guaranty you that they do and are. If you go to the Microsoft website and do a search on mobile operating systems I can ...
(continues)
I really do not know why you post here. Everybody but you is wrong. Nobody here knows what they are talking about.
The truth is you do know somewhat about the things you talk about but you are so worried about being all technical and proving other people wrong that your post are annoying at best.
For example you said I was wrong about ringback tones being customized ringtones to the person making the call. Then you said exactly what I said with different words.
As far a the v710 not using a version of a Microsoft OS I can guaranty you that they do and are. If you go to the Microsoft website and do a search on mobile operating systems I can ...
(continues)
...
ibeetle said:
So I ask (Rhetorically. I don't really care) why do you post here. Why don't you start the I am right and everybody is wrong wirehead phonescoop. You could set it up so that nobody can post. Why would they need to? You are always right and all people would have to do is read what you write.
Yes. Wirehead is certainly a technical guru, ya gotta respect that.
...
ibeetle said:
wirehead I have read most of your post on a variety of subjects over the last few days.
I really do not know why you post here. Everybody but you is wrong. Nobody here knows what they are talking about.
I wouldn't say that.
I'd mostly say that there's a small group of folks who spout off before they have completed thinking. I generally don't bother correcting somebody who's actually *right*, now do I?
I will say that I do my research before I spout off on stuff. Why? Because mobile technology interests *me* and I'd like to find out more about it.
ibeetle said:...
For example you said I was wrong about ringback tones being customized ringtones to the person m
(continues)
...
wirehead said:
I'd mostly say that there's a small group of folks who spout off before they have completed thinking. I generally don't bother correcting somebody who's actually *right*, now do I?
AMEN!!!
wirehead said:
I will say that I do my research before I spout off on stuff. Why? Because mobile technology interests *me* and I'd like to find out more about it.
And I thank God someone tries to know what they're talking about before posting.
...
dee1jay said:
And I thank God someone tries to know what they're talking about before posting.
Yeah, wirehead does his research, that's for sure.
Bill
...
ibeetle said:
If you are in a room, not facing the street or without a outside wall it is unlikely that any Wi-Fi signal could be picked up by someone even parked on the street, much less driving by. I would think if someone was parked in your house holding an antenna out the window pointing it in your direction you would see this.
This is ABSOLUTELY wrong. Read up on wardriving and warchalking for more details.
I have picked up wi-fi signals with my laptop (with an internal antenna) sitting on the passenger seat while driving by at 20 mph. It's real. It's an issue.
...
at 20mph?? I would have to see it.
I have seen demonstrations by people who know a lot a lot about this stuff and even they said you can't get a signal much over 5 or 10 miles an hour.
Even at that speed you show there is a signal but you have to come to a complete stop to find the direction it is coming from and see if it is a unsecured signal.
I am not saying it can't be done at 20mph. I am saying that 20mph is awfully fast and from what I have seen with my own wardriving and from what was demonstrated to me from people who could make a computer from a condom and a gum wrapper your speed is way too fast.
You ask is it real? Yes. Is it an issue from a security stand point. Not for the average home computer user and not for som...
(continues)
I have seen demonstrations by people who know a lot a lot about this stuff and even they said you can't get a signal much over 5 or 10 miles an hour.
Even at that speed you show there is a signal but you have to come to a complete stop to find the direction it is coming from and see if it is a unsecured signal.
I am not saying it can't be done at 20mph. I am saying that 20mph is awfully fast and from what I have seen with my own wardriving and from what was demonstrated to me from people who could make a computer from a condom and a gum wrapper your speed is way too fast.
You ask is it real? Yes. Is it an issue from a security stand point. Not for the average home computer user and not for som...
(continues)
...
ibeetle said:
at 20mph?? I would have to see it.
I have seen demonstrations by people who know a lot a lot about this stuff and even they said you can't get a signal much over 5 or 10 miles an hour.
Try 120 knots.
http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/warflying-1.html »
...
ibeetle said:
at 20mph?? I would have to see it.
Even at that speed you show there is a signal but you have to come to a complete stop to find the direction it is coming from and see if it is a unsecured signal.
Re-read my post. I never said I USED the signal, I said I could pick it up. Then, I pulled over, backed up, and used it. No way would I believe anyone could get off even a "Hi" email driving past a wi-fi site.
ibeetle said:You ask is it real? Yes. Is it an issue from a security stand point. Not for the average home computer user and not for someone that has a secure network.
Again, re-read my post: I didn't ask anything. I stated: "It's real."
(continues)
...
