Go to Post ...remember RAID 0 is a trap. - Sperkowsky [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-22-2012, 04:40 PM
DMetalKong's Avatar
DMetalKong DMetalKong is offline
Registered User
AKA: David K.
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Bridgewater
Posts: 144
DMetalKong is a jewel in the roughDMetalKong is a jewel in the roughDMetalKong is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via AIM to DMetalKong
Re: Team 548 Einstein Statement

As far as I understand the extent of the problems, and as far as I understand the OSI model, the attacks that people are talking about are mostly happening on the network layer, which means that they would have to be resolved on the network layer or above. Since I doubt we will be moving away from 802.11 as the physical layer, and since I doubt we will be messing with MAC addressing and whatnot on the data link layer, this means that issues would have to be resolved at the network layer*.

So, possible solution time: what if FIRST developed custom firmware for the routers that would require a handshake using PKI in addition to the normal procedures for connecting to the field AP? Give every team a SD card or flash drive that contains a signed public-private keypair belonging to the team, as well as the certificate for the field APs. As long as every team's private key remains private, this would ensure that any request to connect to the field by a team would be irrevocably linked to that specific team (so no posing as team XXX trying to disrupt field communications), and any request to connect to the field that is not signed could safely be ignored. MITM should be mitigated in this scenario as well. Denial-of-service or other types of jamming would be possible, but I am assuming they would be more easily detected (because blocking out a user's communication entirely should require more bandwidth than simply impersonating them (I think? Even the FCA attack described did not stop communications on the physical layer, it only made the router ignore a valid connection attempt))*.

* I am by no means an expert, I am just spouting off from my understanding of a couple of networking courses in school.
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi