Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday July 03 2015, @07:10AM   Printer-friendly
from the but-the-terrorists dept.

In the game of anonymity-versus-surveillance online, the discovery of the user's IP address usually means game over. But if Ben Caudill has his way, a network snoop who successfully hunts a user through layers of proxy connections to a final IP address would be met with a dead end—while the anonymous user remains safe at home more than a mile away.

At the upcoming DefCon hacker conference in Las Vegas next month, Caudill plans to unveil ProxyHam, a "hardware proxy" designed to use a radio connection to add a physical layer of obfuscation to an internet user's location. His open-source device, which he built for $200, connects to Wi-Fi and relays a user's Internet connection over a 900 megaherz radio connection to their faraway computer, with a range of between one and 2.5 miles depending on interference from the landscape and buildings. That means even if investigators fully trace the user's internet connection, they'll find only the ProxyHam box the person planted in a remote library, cafe, or other public place—and not their actual location.

Caudill, a researcher for the security consultancy Rhino Labs, compares his tool to typical tactics to hide the source of an Internet connection, like using a neighbor's Wi-Fi, or working from a coffee shop instead of home. But "the problem with Wi-Fi as a protocol is that you can't get the range you need. If the FBI kicks down the door, it may not be my door, but it'll be so close they can hear me breathe," says Caudill. "[ProxyHam] gives you all the benefits of being able to be at a Starbucks or some other remote location, but without physically being there."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @11:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @11:37AM (#204664)

    So placing a hidden telecommunications device on someone else's property is OK in your book? Would you be OK if I hid one of those in your house?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @11:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @11:58AM (#204669)

    Red herring. If someone does that, it's due to their own actions. The company who made the product did not force them to do so.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday July 03 2015, @04:59PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 03 2015, @04:59PM (#204786)

      I could almost agree with this - IF the product is not marketed to do exactly that. After all, it could be an awesome device for non-experts to get an internet connection that last mile into awkward locations. HOWEVER, as presented here it's specifically being marketed as a way to discretely access remote networks, presumably anonymously and without permission since it sort of defeats the point if the provider is able to say "Yeah, that belongs to Frank, I let him leave it here to mooch WiFi". You could try to argue that an open access point gives implicit permission, but I think that would be a hard sell, as there's an implicit range limitation on that permission. The coffee shop gives free wifi to encourage potential customers to linger in the area, not as a public service to anyone in an N-mile radius.

      At that point you've probably got a pretty good case for unauthorized access, which I'm fairly certain is a crime under one of those new computer-crime laws. And by extension, a device marketed to do that would seem to be a pretty clear inducement. Compare to guns, which are typically marketed for sporting and/or personal defense, which are legal purposes. Market them primarily as being ideally suited to home invasions or bank robbery though, and I'll bet you you'll run into legal troubles.

      As for the obvious argument that someone using this device as marketed isn't *necessarily* using it for illegal purposes - I agree completely, but at that point one crime has already been arguably committed, and I think a good lawyer could likely establish a nasty new line of precedent. And let's be honest, most of the people going to such extremes are probably going to be up to no good. And a large percentage of those left are probably at least subversives - i.e. probably up to no good in the eyes of the authorities.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @06:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @06:00PM (#204803)

        "... it could be an awesome device for non-experts to get an internet connection that last mile into awkward locations.

        I've been waiting for something like this. A relative lives about a mile away from my suburban house...and that street has fiber (FiOS). My street is in the next town over and we only have cable internet--with no plans that I can see for fiber any time soon. Unfortunately, there is a small hill in the middle, so I wonder if the radio link will work without line-of-sight?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @05:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @05:17PM (#204792)

      Using the product as designed and advertised violates the law? Hmm ...

      So your lack of response to the other AC's questions about having one unknowingly planted in your home means that it's OK with you?

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday July 03 2015, @05:55PM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday July 03 2015, @05:55PM (#204802) Journal

        If the next county over from me was a totalitarian regime and someone there wanted to get access to an un-monitored and un-censored network connection, I would happily accommodate them. THAT, BTW is the advertised purpose of the device.