I am conflicted about this. The author implies (at least to me) that he used a deauth attack on the neighbor’s device. While I definitely am uncomfortable with the combination of these devices in the close quarters of an apartment complex, I am also concerned about interfering with the safety of someone else’s home. I would be interested to know what the legal standards are for apartments with exterior security equipment.
No, he used a deauth attack on a device that he bought and owns.
I don’t have a video doorbell but my understanding is that their target market is homeowners who want to keep tabs on the most accessible part of their private property, the front door.
His main gripe seems to be a that someone in his apartment building bought a video doorbell and put it outside their door in the shared hallway. Now that person has a permanent, effortless record of his or her neighbors’ comings and goings and I can see how that could be problematic. However, instead of taking it up with the neighbor or landlord, the author chose to demonize the company that makes the doorbell instead.
“However, instead of taking it up with the neighbor or landlord”
Like that was going to go anywhere.
“the author chose to demonize the company that makes the doorbell instead.”
The author chose to demonized the poor, security practices of a security company making surveillance equipment. Probably all the author can do other than ignore the problem.
No, he used a deauth attack on a device that he bought and owns.
He only admitted to using the deauth attack on his own device, but it’s implied that he wouldn’t have bought his own device if it weren’t to learn how to protect himself from his neighbors’ devices.
The problem here is that wifi cards can only be
tuned to one frequency at a time, so unless you know the channel your
potential target is on, you need to keep jumping between frequencies
while looking for a target
Couldn’t this be fixed with 14 USB dongles? (Since 2.4GHz Wifi has 14
channels). As long as the dongles are in passive mode the interference should
be negligible, I think.
I am conflicted about this. The author implies (at least to me) that he used a deauth attack on the neighbor’s device. While I definitely am uncomfortable with the combination of these devices in the close quarters of an apartment complex, I am also concerned about interfering with the safety of someone else’s home. I would be interested to know what the legal standards are for apartments with exterior security equipment.
No, he used a deauth attack on a device that he bought and owns.
I don’t have a video doorbell but my understanding is that their target market is homeowners who want to keep tabs on the most accessible part of their private property, the front door.
His main gripe seems to be a that someone in his apartment building bought a video doorbell and put it outside their door in the shared hallway. Now that person has a permanent, effortless record of his or her neighbors’ comings and goings and I can see how that could be problematic. However, instead of taking it up with the neighbor or landlord, the author chose to demonize the company that makes the doorbell instead.
“However, instead of taking it up with the neighbor or landlord”
Like that was going to go anywhere.
“the author chose to demonize the company that makes the doorbell instead.”
The author chose to demonized the poor, security practices of a security company making surveillance equipment. Probably all the author can do other than ignore the problem.
He only admitted to using the deauth attack on his own device, but it’s implied that he wouldn’t have bought his own device if it weren’t to learn how to protect himself from his neighbors’ devices.
Couldn’t this be fixed with 14 USB dongles? (Since 2.4GHz Wifi has 14 channels). As long as the dongles are in passive mode the interference should be negligible, I think.