deskthority

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/30 ... _fi_sense/

What the actual fuck Microsoft ? Did this not flash warning bells up everywhere at the product design stage ? If it did not they are retarded and if it did and they ignored it they are intentionally making wifi less secure.

I mean sure it will be hashed and hopefully slated( i would not put it past M$ to store it in plain text tho to be fair) in there database but you are still storing access point details for millions of people, anyone who is a friend can automatically log into your AP or if you give out our wifi password then all of your friends friends have it, the list goes on.

Now Microsoft say they wont have access to services only the internet, but what does that mean exactly ? How do they achieve that ?

And its not just access to services , what if that person goes on your wifi and downloads some illegal material ( cracked software kiddy porn and so on, you would be liable )

And the way you opt out is even more stupid, you have to put _optout at the end of your SSID, but how do we know if that works or not ? Do they still store the password and just not allow it to be used ?

Nobody apart from me is getting on my wifi with windows 10 or windows Phone 8+ and in work i will have to switch to RADIUS authentication, will do the _optout thing for now.

Jeez that's typical M$. They often have some crazy ideas they want to implement in their next OS realease. But with the amount of users win has you know someone will be working on disabling Wi-Fi Sense.

You can uncheck it when you sign into a network. But the user has to do this, and as we all know the user is always and idiot.

A couple of friends of mine are into Assetto Corsa. Now I've got my Mac Pro up and well again, and a nice display, they're nagging me to install a Windows partition (I'd do it on a separate old SSD really) and get playing with them. Good old Microsoft faceplants like this make me really question the bother…

Don't get me wrong windows 10 looks decent , but things like this just means i need to look at everything on the OS with a fine tooth comb and check it for fuck ups.

My understanding is that you have to manually check it each time you want to share a certain network's credentials, but still, I don't think most people will get the implications of this - that if you share a network's credentials, you're granting every contact of yours access to that network.

Yes, this is in theory more secure than giving out a PSK and hoping someone doesn't post it publicly on Facebook, because it only goes one hop, and that one hop hypothetically can't see the PSK. But, most people wouldn't post a PSK for someone else's network publicly on Facebook, whereas I could absolutely see someone checking the box to share someone else's PSK without realizing the implications.

Also, I'd guess on a technical level, if you connect using shared credentials, the Windows firewall is probably dropping/rejecting any packets that are going to the subnet that DHCP gave it, except for the gateway. It's client-side, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's an attack against that protection.

Also, another nasty thing is the whole automatically agreeing to terms and conditions on public wifi hotspots. Given that the law in the US sees a T&C violation on a computer system as unauthorized use and equal to using exploits or illegitimate credentials to use the system, under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986... that's a legal minefield for Microsoft. It's not one that affects relatively savvy users (just shut off the "automatically agree to terms and conditions" option, and you're safe), unlike the PSK sharing feature (which affects literally everyone even if you don't use WP8.1+ or W10+), but it's still an ugly one.

Other ways to avoid this, by the way, include setting up a RADIUS server and using EAP instead of PSK (which, honestly, is not the worst of ideas - that way, you can give each person their own credentials for your network), or I believe hidden SSIDs are also excluded from Wi-Fi Sense.

Maybe its my tin foil hat but maybe Microsoft is trying to quietly make everything a meshnet / piggyback on users. Much in the same way Hola VPN made everyone into an exit node for their VPN.

SL89 wrote: ↑Maybe its my tin foil hat but maybe Microsoft is trying to quietly make everything a meshnet / piggyback on users. Much in the same way Hola VPN made everyone into an exit node for their VPN.

Sure, you're right. Not only that they are doing that, but how they are going about it. Not everone is so retarded as not to notice.

What I also enjoyed is their new licensing model. Basically making people think that Windows 10 will be free and that's it's ok to use a pirate copy. Neither is true.

SL89 wrote: ↑Maybe its my tin foil hat but maybe Microsoft is trying to quietly make everything a meshnet / piggyback on users. Much in the same way Hola VPN made everyone into an exit node for their VPN.

don't even get me started on hola

i have blocked access to there IPs on my network

Wow, much conspiracy theory. Little fact. Little googling for more info.

Yes, runnng Linux in a Faraday cage with no network access is safer than using a MS product. Okay, let's move on.

It will be unchecked by default. User has to intentionally check the box, then check each sharing network.
People you share the hash of your key with cannot reshare it.
It will connect through FB to your friends, but rumor is that the key will be hosted by MS, not FB.
Few business networks worth their salt use a static PSK for network access.
This is not a "mesh network", any more than your email is.

Sounds like you know what you're talking about. Have you tried Windows 10? To be honest I have never had a security issue (that I knew about) under Windows 8.1. I do "feel" safer when I'm using Ubuntu. I think Windows has a disasterous security image in general. Welcome to DT btw.

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑Wow, much conspiracy theory. Little fact. Little googling for more info.

Wow, much sarcasm, such preach.

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑Yes, runnng Linux in a Faraday cage with no network access is safer than using a MS product. Okay, let's move on.

I'm not sure what your getting at?

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑It will be unchecked by default. User has to intentionally check the box, then check each sharing network.
People you share the hash of your key with cannot reshare it.
It will connect through FB to your friends, but rumor is that the key will be hosted by MS, not FB.
Few business networks worth their salt use a static PSK for network access.
This is not a "mesh network", any more than your email is.

It may be unchecked by default from the get go, but that can very quickly be changed. MS is not above changing default settings.

All of the additional connections between FB and MS are not about who hosts what, but the fact that you're stuff can / will be out there. Regardless of who hosts it, it can get out further. I doubt anyone would keep defaults on regardless around these parts.

Regarding business networks I'm not sure what you are getting at again.

And you're right it's not a mesh network, but it is further delving into user information for 'convenience' sake, and who knows what else.

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑It will be unchecked by default. User has to intentionally check the box, then check each sharing network.

From the WiFi Sense FAQ

If you decide to manually enter your password on someone's Windows Phone instead of sharing access through Wi-Fi Sense, make sure they can't see what you're typing when you enter it, and then clear the Share network with my contacts check box before you tap Done to connect.

It seems it is on by default for all new networks.
It took long enough for router manufacturers to get over the "wifi on by default with admin/admin credentials" nonsense and now we are getting back to the start?
Casual users don't change settings..They use the product with the defaults, and if given options, they accept the preselected ones and never think about them again. (remember browser toolbars?)

I smell another OS war thread.

I think that one really big factor with these security issues is knowledge and awareness. If I know it I can change it and take precautions. The fact is that Microsoft has changed a lot in Windows 8.

DT skews very much into penguinland iirc.

Or mac land

Also from the same FAQ

If a contact shares Wi-Fi network access with you, it can take a few days for it to appear on your phone. The same is true for networks you share with your contacts—it can take a few days for them to get access on their phones. If you share a network and then stop sharing it, it usually takes a few days until it stops being shared so your contacts can't connect to it.

Really MS??? It takes a few days to unshare?
And as the network owner I have to take action so YOU can't use MY network? I have to opt-out of your god-given right to use my network? I might just leave it open if I can't control who accesses it.

Don't get me wrong, I am all Windows, but this shit ticks me off.

The devil is in the details it seems. MS is trying (very ambitiously) to make things 'just work.'

I've played around with Windows 10 and it feels very much like a proper hybrid between what people expect from mobile OS's and existing desktop OS's.

It's not a 'game changer' like they wanted Win8 to be, but it certainly is forward thinking. I'm sure there will be grumbles about privacy, (esp on DT) but that slope has been getting a lot steeper since XP handed off to Vista even.

The other thing is, if this works how I think it works, it would require a network connection to connect to a network. (I thought I also read that there was some geofencing tech, which means GPS and/or cellular triangulation is also needed.) So, it'll only be usable by devices with cellular radios, I believe.

You're saying windows 10 itself will only usable by devices with cellular radios? I could see them implementing some GSM/ UMTS activation. If that's true I'm out.

No, I'm saying that Wi-Fi Sense will only be fully usable by devices with cellular radios, I think. Unless, of course, they're storing shared networks' keys on the device, which would be colossally stupid. As I understand, though, it checks with Microsoft's servers to see whether an available network is in Wi-Fi Sense before connecting to it, if none of your preferred Wi-Fi networks were available. This would only work if you were already connected to a network through another method like cellular (and it's meant to be a cellular data saving measure).

seebart wrote: ↑You're saying windows 10 itself will only usable by devices with cellular radios? I could see them implementing some GSM/ UMTS activation. If that's true I'm out.

Just for amusement: where would you go?

bhtooefr wrote: ↑No, I'm saying that Wi-Fi Sense will only be fully usable by devices with cellular radios, I think. Unless, of course, they're storing shared networks' keys on the device, which would be colossally stupid. As I understand, though, it checks with Microsoft's servers to see whether an available network is in Wi-Fi Sense before connecting to it, if none of your preferred Wi-Fi networks were available. This would only work if you were already connected to a network through another method like cellular (and it's meant to be a cellular data saving measure).

I think MS or someone else would store the creds as opposed to local storage.

Muirium wrote: ↑

seebart wrote: ↑You're saying windows 10 itself will only usable by devices with cellular radios? I could see them implementing some GSM/ UMTS activation. If that's true I'm out.

Just for amusement: where would you go?

Well not Apple, that's for sure. When I say "out", I mean I will not touch that version. Win 7 is fine. Ohter than that I can always go with Ubuntu. I'm not going to try anything "exotic" like reactOS. Of course unlike in iOS / OSX there will be a workaround for all of this like there always is. I don't have to play by M$ rules either. I skipped quite a few Windows versions in anticipation.

Right got it now SL89.

I've done quite a bit of beta testing (both for my job and personally), and I think Win10 will be the "next Win7". What I mean is that after the disaster of Vista, Win7 was such an amazing breath of fresh air for users who were put off by all the changes and headaches of Vista (many of which weren't entirely MS's fault but the blame of not doing due diligence with API/system hook issues does fall on their shoulders).

Win8/8.1 ran leaner, faster, and had lower practical system requirements than W7. But the UI change was too abrupt and too dramatic for most users. It's a very elegant but schizophrenic OS, and MS did not market and train people well enough in the roll-out. W10 corrects many of the missteps of W8.1 and does add a few features. But mainly it's about what it fixes than what it offers, despite what MS marketing might say (of course they don't want to say, "it's W8.1, fixed!" so they say "it's W8.1, with new features").

Medium to large businesses will be unaffected by Wifi Sense. They use AD or other per-user signins, many even still running Novell or other third-party access solution. And the sensible admins will disable Wifi Sense through user policy anyway. So I really don't see how it will be a problem for them.

If anyone is THAT concerned about security, are they using Wifi anyway? They would have the wireless network partitioned from the wired network anyway, right? Who uses wifi thinking that it's 100% secure these days, anyway? There are tons of pentesting linux distros and even hardware crackers out there.

For the average user, I do hope MS sticks with the plan and has it unchecked by default. Again, this is the hash of your pw, not the actual pw. Depending on the function they use, maybe it's hard to reverse or maybe it's not. That's not in the current documentation that I can find. Of course, no company is above "changing the default settings", including Apple, etc. But for something like this, I don't really see them doing that.

What I do love about this is that if it's easy to let share your wifi with your friends for when they come over, they you can have a VERY strong pw, which is a good thing. No more "abcdefg" to make it easy to share.

For a l33t hAx0r to be able to "steal your info", they have to get ahold of the hash of your PW, which means extracting from some device it has been shared with (maybe not that hard). They they have to reverse engineer the hash (probably pretty hard, depending on pw complexity). Then they come to your house, sit in front of your driveway, and get on your network (not hard, but bold for sure). And then they can watch your movies and stream to your Roku. Seems like a lot of work for a simple wifi password to me. :shrug:

SL89 wrote: ↑

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑Wow, much conspiracy theory. Little fact. Little googling for more info.

Wow, much sarcasm, such preach.

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑Yes, runnng Linux in a Faraday cage with no network access is safer than using a MS product. Okay, let's move on.

I'm not sure what your getting at?

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑It will be unchecked by default. User has to intentionally check the box, then check each sharing network.
People you share the hash of your key with cannot reshare it.
It will connect through FB to your friends, but rumor is that the key will be hosted by MS, not FB.
Few business networks worth their salt use a static PSK for network access.
This is not a "mesh network", any more than your email is.

It may be unchecked by default from the get go, but that can very quickly be changed. MS is not above changing default settings.

All of the additional connections between FB and MS are not about who hosts what, but the fact that you're stuff can / will be out there. Regardless of who hosts it, it can get out further. I doubt anyone would keep defaults on regardless around these parts.

Regarding business networks I'm not sure what you are getting at again.

And you're right it's not a mesh network, but it is further delving into user information for 'convenience' sake, and who knows what else.

OK, I admit my post wasn't as polite as I would like. El Reg annoys me in their skew on news, and I let that annoyance at theregister come out in my post. I apologize for that.

My Faraday comment was attempting to make the point that it's always possible to be more secure if you're willing to sacrifice usability and connectivity. This is a continuum of balance, and you have to gauge the risk/reward of any feature/design decision.

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑And the sensible admins will disable Wifi Sense through user policy anyway. So I really don't see how it will be a problem for them.

That disables it for devices on the domain, the problem is devices that aren't on the domain. (However, if they're using EAP instead of PSK, then that works too.)

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑For the average user, I do hope MS sticks with the plan and has it unchecked by default. Again, this is the hash of your pw, not the actual pw. Depending on the function they use, maybe it's hard to reverse or maybe it's not. That's not in the current documentation that I can find.

It would HAVE to be stored in plaintext somewhere, for hashes to be generated.

bhtooefr wrote: ↑

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑And the sensible admins will disable Wifi Sense through user policy anyway. So I really don't see how it will be a problem for them.

That disables it for devices on the domain, the problem is devices that aren't on the domain. (However, if they're using EAP instead of PSK, then that works too.)

Heedpantsnow wrote: ↑For the average user, I do hope MS sticks with the plan and has it unchecked by default. Again, this is the hash of your pw, not the actual pw. Depending on the function they use, maybe it's hard to reverse or maybe it's not. That's not in the current documentation that I can find.

It would HAVE to be stored in plaintext somewhere, for hashes to be generated.

My hope is that the hash will be generated on the original user's device, and then only the hash sent out. But so far it's unclear exactly where the plaintext stops and hash starts.

It's also interesting that you can add "_optout" to the Wi-Fi network's name to disable Wifi Sense on your network (which I probably will at my home), and you can also add "_nomap" if you don't want it mapped by MS.

Heedspantsnow, no worries, i could tell it was annoying to you, thanks for clarifying that it was the source and not me.

I agree with all of your points in the longer post, Win10 is the next 7, and may end up being the next XP if he has the longevity (and desktops stay around that long.) I quite like Win10, i just think MS is a typical company and makes certain tradeoffs that not everyone (especially in this crowd) can get behind.

I really hope your right and that they keep it unchecked, but I just see MS as doing what is easier by default and thus will get passed down to the majority of uses.

Except, the best case here is that Microsoft has the plaintext key and performs hashing for the client upon request - the hash values change depending on values that the router sends, which change for every new connection attempt.

And, _optout isn't an answer. (_nomap is Google's standard, BTW, not Microsoft's.) What's next, ssid_optout_noauto_nobypasst&c_nomap?