On Aug 18, 9:04*am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:20:08 -0700 (PDT), "m...@sushi.com"
> <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> >New Fluke device fights child ****, identity theft, phishing scheme,
> >but will not cure baldness or relieve that painful burning sensation.
> >Everett-based Fluke Networks adapted a troubleshooting product to help
> >law enforcement officials fight crime.
> Adapted how? *Nothing on sniffing content on the Fluke web site:
> $2000. *Basically, it's a neat portable sniffer similar to InSSIDer,
> Kismet, or other wireless sniffer software. *What the clueless author
> of the KVAL article lacked was the understanding that the wireless
> access point or client needs to be previously identified as a source
> or consumer of child ****ography, and that the Fluke instrument will
> simply nail down some details required to identify the perpetrator.
> That can also be done with any wireless sniffer. *
> Jeff Liebermann * * je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558
It doesn't appear to have enough volume to contain much of a
My guess is they have to know the mac, then try to DF it mostly on
signal strength. If you have a little bit of directionality, you
probably could use signal strength to aid in DFing.
Basically this is the kind of device we would dream up, ponder upon,
then declare kind of useless. But we're not in the business of
fleecing the government. As you know, with a directional antenna, the
client could be some distance away from the WAP itself, and further
could be cloaked by WAPs near the client. That is, the cop would have
to get on the beam of the client rather than any WAP near the client.
It's really a shame a good company like Fluke would peddle such