I see a couple things here (Score: 1) by codemachine@pipedot.org on 2014-10-09 18:06 (#2T6R) On one hand, it might protect some of their customers who would otherwise foolishly connect to unsecured rouge access points run by some scammers. I could see a little bit of validity to the security argument.On the other hand, if there is a law that makes it illegal to purposefully jam a WiFi signal, shouldn't a denial of service attack that takes out the WiFi be similarly illegal? Re: I see a couple things here (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-10 17:32 (#2T7C) if there is a law that makes it illegal to purposefully jam a WiFi signal, shouldn't a denial of service attack that takes out the WiFi be similarly illegal?My thoughts exactly. The technical mechanism they used is only of interest to us readers as a technical curiosity. I don't know that 'jam' and 'DoS' are really exclusive, anyway: it seems reasonable to say that they used DoS as a means of achieving a jam.
Re: I see a couple things here (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-10 17:32 (#2T7C) if there is a law that makes it illegal to purposefully jam a WiFi signal, shouldn't a denial of service attack that takes out the WiFi be similarly illegal?My thoughts exactly. The technical mechanism they used is only of interest to us readers as a technical curiosity. I don't know that 'jam' and 'DoS' are really exclusive, anyway: it seems reasonable to say that they used DoS as a means of achieving a jam.