Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
103 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Richard Owlett-3
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




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Reco
        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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Richard Owlett-3
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.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

john doe-6
In reply to this post by Reco
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Reco
In reply to this post by Richard Owlett-3
        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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Reco
In reply to this post by john doe-6
        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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Dan Ritter-4
In reply to this post by Richard Owlett-3
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Dan Ritter-4
In reply to this post by john doe-6
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-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Joe Rowan
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:34:25 -0400
Dan Ritter <[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Dan Ritter-4
Joe wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:34:25 -0400
> Dan Ritter <[hidden email]> 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-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

John Hasler-3
In reply to this post by Richard Owlett-3
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
[hidden email]
Elmwood, WI USA

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

John Hasler-3
In reply to this post by Joe Rowan
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
[hidden email]
Elmwood, WI USA

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Erik Christiansen
In reply to this post by Joe Rowan
On 29.07.19 14:44, Joe wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:34:25 -0400
> Dan Ritter <[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

David Wright-3
In reply to this post by Dan Ritter-4
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

David Wright-3
In reply to this post by Richard Owlett-3
On Mon 29 Jul 2019 at 05:40:40 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:

> 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?".

You should be reading the shelf prices of cheap wifi routers at the
local chain store, or look in the papers for garage sales, students
selling up, etc. and make an offer on an old router.
The last router I bought was $38 inc tax and it has 5GHz.

> A concern is security issues.

Why? You're going to encrypt everything that passes through it aren't
you. And no one is going to steal your bandwidth if it's not connected
to a modem.

> Bluetooth, being short range, may thus
> have an advantage.

IP networking is built into linux. You can't get away from it, it's
just there. So use it. Configuring bluetooth is just a distraction.

Cheers,
David.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Richard Owlett-3
In reply to this post by John Hasler-3
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 ;}




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Patrick Bartek-2
In reply to this post by Richard Owlett-3
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 05:40:40 -0500
Richard Owlett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 ;)

Since your machines are very close together, take a look at USB to USB
networking.

It's wired, so more secure than any type of wireless. Fast or reasonably
so depending on type of USB -- 2? 3?  Minimum investment.  USB cables
are cheap. With Ethernet, besides extra cables, you'd have to buy at
least a switch. And as most computers have multiple USB ports, it's
easy to set up.  

B

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

David Wright-3
In reply to this post by Dan Ritter-4
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 <[hidden email]> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

Patrick Bartek-2
In reply to this post by john doe-6
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:05:02 +0200
john doe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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?

I checked into this option myself.  One caveat: For it to work the
router and computers have to be on the same household electrical
circuit. That is, if the router is on the "office" circuit and the
computer(s) are on the "bedroom" circuit, it won't work.  Just look at
your breakerbox: each breaker is a separate circuit. Also if you have
any electric devices running on the circuit being used to network,
you'll get interferance. Plus, you have to buy an adapter for the
router and each computer.  I considered this a last resort option.

B

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wireless home LAN - WiFi vs Bluetooth?

John Hasler-3
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
[hidden email]
Elmwood, WI USA

1234 ... 6