▲ 61 ▼ New BLUFFS attack lets attackers hijack Bluetooth connections (www.bleepingcomputer.com) submitted 2 years ago by ijeff@lemdro.id [M] to c/android@lemdro.id 16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 25 points 2 years ago (2 children) So basically all Bluetooth devices are affected? This is huge news. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] akrot@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's also crazy how there is this push from all OEM to remove headphone jack and force consumers to use wireless earphones, further making the attack surface much wider. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Even now I think we should've added a second USB Port if we were going to remove the headphone jack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] runefehay@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago A second USB port or headphone jack adds $1(US) to the manufacturing cost, if even that. Can't cut into the corporation's massive profits by even a little. Nope, can't have that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] db2@sopuli.xyz -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wonder if it would still be an issue had Bluetooth won the wireless network stack war. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wireless Network Stack War? Do you mind enlightening me? I've never heard of such a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] db2@sopuli.xyz -4 points 2 years ago (5 children) It came down to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to be the wireless network standard. For a hot minute it wasn't clear who would come out the winner. I can't find shit about it though. It was around 2000ish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] GrayBoltWolf@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) You’re probably thinking about homerf, which was the competitor to WiFi. I don’t think Bluetooth was ever marketed as an alternative to WiFi. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] db2@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago It could be a Mandela effect thing. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago not even close. They were always intended for different purposes. They never were in competition permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Bluetooth has it's own stack. Wifi typically runs tcpip. Your post doesn't even make sense because both wifi and Bluetooth coexist today so clearly there was no "winner". permalink fedilink source parent [–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago You aren't crazy. I remember this being posited as a wifi alternative too. They claimed you could have a Bluetooth signal that wouldn't reach beyond the walls of your home, preventing outside people (neighbors etc) from piggybacking on your network even if they had a password or the network was open because of the short range. And that tech does sort of exist today. A lot of mesh wifi routers use Bluetooth to connect to each other and provide that wifi to you in whatever part of your home you happen to be in. IOT devices do this as well. I believe this was called a piconet. But it never caught on, and I think it was more a theoretical idea than an actual real push. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 1 point 2 years ago Oh wow, I'm glad Bluetooth lost given that it's vastly inferior. I mean we're even starting to see wifi headphones now, soon Bluetooth will be relegated to legacy devices. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] akrot@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's also crazy how there is this push from all OEM to remove headphone jack and force consumers to use wireless earphones, further making the attack surface much wider. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Even now I think we should've added a second USB Port if we were going to remove the headphone jack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] runefehay@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago A second USB port or headphone jack adds $1(US) to the manufacturing cost, if even that. Can't cut into the corporation's massive profits by even a little. Nope, can't have that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Even now I think we should've added a second USB Port if we were going to remove the headphone jack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] runefehay@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago A second USB port or headphone jack adds $1(US) to the manufacturing cost, if even that. Can't cut into the corporation's massive profits by even a little. Nope, can't have that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] runefehay@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago A second USB port or headphone jack adds $1(US) to the manufacturing cost, if even that. Can't cut into the corporation's massive profits by even a little. Nope, can't have that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] db2@sopuli.xyz -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wonder if it would still be an issue had Bluetooth won the wireless network stack war. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wireless Network Stack War? Do you mind enlightening me? I've never heard of such a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] db2@sopuli.xyz -4 points 2 years ago (5 children) It came down to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to be the wireless network standard. For a hot minute it wasn't clear who would come out the winner. I can't find shit about it though. It was around 2000ish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] GrayBoltWolf@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) You’re probably thinking about homerf, which was the competitor to WiFi. I don’t think Bluetooth was ever marketed as an alternative to WiFi. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] db2@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago It could be a Mandela effect thing. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago not even close. They were always intended for different purposes. They never were in competition permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Bluetooth has it's own stack. Wifi typically runs tcpip. Your post doesn't even make sense because both wifi and Bluetooth coexist today so clearly there was no "winner". permalink fedilink source parent [–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago You aren't crazy. I remember this being posited as a wifi alternative too. They claimed you could have a Bluetooth signal that wouldn't reach beyond the walls of your home, preventing outside people (neighbors etc) from piggybacking on your network even if they had a password or the network was open because of the short range. And that tech does sort of exist today. A lot of mesh wifi routers use Bluetooth to connect to each other and provide that wifi to you in whatever part of your home you happen to be in. IOT devices do this as well. I believe this was called a piconet. But it never caught on, and I think it was more a theoretical idea than an actual real push. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 1 point 2 years ago Oh wow, I'm glad Bluetooth lost given that it's vastly inferior. I mean we're even starting to see wifi headphones now, soon Bluetooth will be relegated to legacy devices. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wireless Network Stack War? Do you mind enlightening me? I've never heard of such a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] db2@sopuli.xyz -4 points 2 years ago (5 children) It came down to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to be the wireless network standard. For a hot minute it wasn't clear who would come out the winner. I can't find shit about it though. It was around 2000ish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] GrayBoltWolf@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) You’re probably thinking about homerf, which was the competitor to WiFi. I don’t think Bluetooth was ever marketed as an alternative to WiFi. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] db2@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago It could be a Mandela effect thing. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago not even close. They were always intended for different purposes. They never were in competition permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Bluetooth has it's own stack. Wifi typically runs tcpip. Your post doesn't even make sense because both wifi and Bluetooth coexist today so clearly there was no "winner". permalink fedilink source parent [–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago You aren't crazy. I remember this being posited as a wifi alternative too. They claimed you could have a Bluetooth signal that wouldn't reach beyond the walls of your home, preventing outside people (neighbors etc) from piggybacking on your network even if they had a password or the network was open because of the short range. And that tech does sort of exist today. A lot of mesh wifi routers use Bluetooth to connect to each other and provide that wifi to you in whatever part of your home you happen to be in. IOT devices do this as well. I believe this was called a piconet. But it never caught on, and I think it was more a theoretical idea than an actual real push. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 1 point 2 years ago Oh wow, I'm glad Bluetooth lost given that it's vastly inferior. I mean we're even starting to see wifi headphones now, soon Bluetooth will be relegated to legacy devices. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] db2@sopuli.xyz -4 points 2 years ago (5 children) It came down to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to be the wireless network standard. For a hot minute it wasn't clear who would come out the winner. I can't find shit about it though. It was around 2000ish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] GrayBoltWolf@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) You’re probably thinking about homerf, which was the competitor to WiFi. I don’t think Bluetooth was ever marketed as an alternative to WiFi. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] db2@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago It could be a Mandela effect thing. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago not even close. They were always intended for different purposes. They never were in competition permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Bluetooth has it's own stack. Wifi typically runs tcpip. Your post doesn't even make sense because both wifi and Bluetooth coexist today so clearly there was no "winner". permalink fedilink source parent [–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago You aren't crazy. I remember this being posited as a wifi alternative too. They claimed you could have a Bluetooth signal that wouldn't reach beyond the walls of your home, preventing outside people (neighbors etc) from piggybacking on your network even if they had a password or the network was open because of the short range. And that tech does sort of exist today. A lot of mesh wifi routers use Bluetooth to connect to each other and provide that wifi to you in whatever part of your home you happen to be in. IOT devices do this as well. I believe this was called a piconet. But it never caught on, and I think it was more a theoretical idea than an actual real push. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 1 point 2 years ago Oh wow, I'm glad Bluetooth lost given that it's vastly inferior. I mean we're even starting to see wifi headphones now, soon Bluetooth will be relegated to legacy devices. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GrayBoltWolf@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) You’re probably thinking about homerf, which was the competitor to WiFi. I don’t think Bluetooth was ever marketed as an alternative to WiFi. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] db2@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago It could be a Mandela effect thing. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] db2@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago It could be a Mandela effect thing. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago not even close. They were always intended for different purposes. They never were in competition permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Bluetooth has it's own stack. Wifi typically runs tcpip. Your post doesn't even make sense because both wifi and Bluetooth coexist today so clearly there was no "winner". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago You aren't crazy. I remember this being posited as a wifi alternative too. They claimed you could have a Bluetooth signal that wouldn't reach beyond the walls of your home, preventing outside people (neighbors etc) from piggybacking on your network even if they had a password or the network was open because of the short range. And that tech does sort of exist today. A lot of mesh wifi routers use Bluetooth to connect to each other and provide that wifi to you in whatever part of your home you happen to be in. IOT devices do this as well. I believe this was called a piconet. But it never caught on, and I think it was more a theoretical idea than an actual real push. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 1 point 2 years ago Oh wow, I'm glad Bluetooth lost given that it's vastly inferior. I mean we're even starting to see wifi headphones now, soon Bluetooth will be relegated to legacy devices. permalink fedilink source parent