Wireless QOTD April 26th

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Answer later.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Today I'm going with A.

 

A seems logically compared to the other options (in theory)

 

I've also gone for A. Good question Trip.

 

Thanks. It has an even better answer.

 

Waiting with baited breath!

 

That comment has "fishing joke" written all over it.

 

Yeah i left myself wide open for that one... but just for the record i dont fish!!

 

If your breath is baited, do you bob for them?

 

Sneaked in a late D before closing

 

Time's up. Drumroll please. Correct answer is...B. That's right, the hacker would need to do something to make the clients dissociate from the valid AP. The man-in-the-middle attack on a WLAN attempts to get client computers to associate with his/her laptop that's running AP software on it. The hacker has several tasks. They must acquire the SSID for the network but they don't have to decrypt it (D) because it's sent out in beacons in plaintext. The laptop must also transmit at a higher power level than the AP so the clients, after being dissociated from the valid AP, will associate with the hacker's laptop instead of reacquiring the valid AP. The hacker would not want to continually jam the AP because the hacker needs it to connect to the rest of the network and keep the clients connected, too. Sometimes you can force a client to disassociate with their AP by temporarily jamming a part of the WLAN band with a Bluetooth device (which causes narrow band interference).

This one was a tad more challenging than some I've put up recently. I was beginning to think that there was nothing I could ask in this realm that you couldn't answer. Good job, folks. Let's meet back here tomorrow for another go.

 

Oh well, no cigar today

Thanks Trip

 

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself, AJ. After all, no one got the correct answer. It couldn't have been all that easy.