Frank Dresser wrote:
"Dennis Ferguson" wrote in message
...

Note that this is not a unique attribute, it is about the same situation
as that which exists for broadband Internet service via cable modems. I
assume that BPL would use the same protection techniques (mostly
depending on control of the receiving equipment, I think). This seems
to mostly work, I very seldom hear complaints about the security of
people's cable connections.

Yeah, I'm almost totally ignorant on this one. I sorta assumed the cable
companies set aside some bandwidth for internet access, and trapped it out
for non-internet cable subscribers.

No, there's no traps for non-Internet cable subscribers. This is why
you can sometimes go to Best Buy, buy a cable modem, plug it in and
then call the cable company to program it on. Everything to everyone
in your neighbourhood is sent through one or more (unused for TV)
television channels, the cable modem gets it all, picks out those packets
which are addressed to you and discards the rest.

This is `secure' only because the configuration and operation of the
modems is controlled entirely by the operator on the RF side of the modem.
There is a standard called DOCSIS which the modems must conform to which
standardizes the configuration interface and is intended to minimize the
possibility that the user can fiddle with any of it. This seems to work
well enough (and maybe the idea of watching your neighbours' Internet
traffic is boring enough?) that I haven't heard of people hacking the modems
the way they do digital cable and DBS receivers, though who knows?

In any case, I think whatever permits cable operators to sell their
service will work equally well for BPL since the situations are
exceedingly similar.

Dennis Ferguson

Behold, Ron Hardin signalled from keyed 4-1000A filament:

Gregg wrote:
If MD5 can be cracked, forget 100% security via BPL.

There is nothing - absolutely nothing that can't be cracked.

Wander over to
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/c...g/numbers.html and
factor one of their numbers for money. They'll give you $10k to $200k
if you do.

It's a very old challenge by now.

If you have kept up with /. and stuff, you'll see they have had to pay
that out a few times ;-)

The Dutch cracked their 128-bit encryption commonly used in browsers,
Hong Kong students cracked MD5....

--
Gregg
*It's probably useful, even if it can't be SPICE'd*
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca

"Dennis Ferguson" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:
How much privacy are the BPL folk promising? I have to figure there's
some
level of encryption, but I'm curious about the level. If a power grid is
used for a network, than the common signals will be available at any
power
outlet in a whole area, even for non-subscribers. Looks like a high tech
party line to me.

Note that this is not a unique attribute, it is about the same situation
as that which exists for broadband Internet service via cable modems. I
assume that BPL would use the same protection techniques (mostly
depending on control of the receiving equipment, I think). This seems
to mostly work, I very seldom hear complaints about the security of
people's cable connections.

Dennis Ferguson

Cable connections are shielded. If signals "leak out," the cable company
is required to fix it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Gregg" wrote in message
. ..
Behold, Frank Dresser signalled from keyed 4-1000A filament:

How much privacy are the BPL folk promising? I have to figure there's
some level of encryption, but I'm curious about the level.

If MD5 can be cracked, forget 100% security via BPL.

There is nothing - absolutely nothing that can't be cracked.

--
Gregg
*It's probably useful, even if it can't be SPICE'd*
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca

Beside the obvious privacy issue, I've been wondering if BPL will be
another
security burden on the whole internet. It looks like it might be a code
cracker's playground, what with the network going all around, to the every
outlet in an area, to both subscribers and non subscribers. Could the
truely malicious do their damage from a non-subscribing home? I don't
know,
I don't really know anything about networking.

Frank Dresser

This is something to consider. It might very well be possible if someone is
clever enough. And sooner or later someone will be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dennis Ferguson" wrote in message
...

No, there's no traps for non-Internet cable subscribers. This is why
you can sometimes go to Best Buy, buy a cable modem, plug it in and
then call the cable company to program it on. Everything to everyone
in your neighbourhood is sent through one or more (unused for TV)
television channels, the cable modem gets it all, picks out those packets
which are addressed to you and discards the rest.

This is `secure' only because the configuration and operation of the
modems is controlled entirely by the operator on the RF side of the modem.
There is a standard called DOCSIS which the modems must conform to which
standardizes the configuration interface and is intended to minimize the
possibility that the user can fiddle with any of it. This seems to work
well enough (and maybe the idea of watching your neighbours' Internet
traffic is boring enough?) that I haven't heard of people hacking the
modems
the way they do digital cable and DBS receivers, though who knows?


No more interesting than cell phone calls, I suppose. But Billy Tauzin was
so concerned that radio hobbyists would be listening in on phone calls that
he pushed through the cell phone frequency capable scanner ban.


In any case, I think whatever permits cable operators to sell their
service will work equally well for BPL since the situations are
exceedingly similar.

Dennis Ferguson

I suppose, except for the RFI. What can we SWLs do if there's nothing but
BPL hash on the radio? Maybe the Perv in Eammus, Pennsylvania will QSL his
kewl noodie pix downloads.

Frank Dresser

"Dennis Ferguson" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"Dennis Ferguson" wrote in message
...

Note that this is not a unique attribute, it is about the same
situation
as that which exists for broadband Internet service via cable modems.
I
assume that BPL would use the same protection techniques (mostly
depending on control of the receiving equipment, I think). This seems
to mostly work, I very seldom hear complaints about the security of
people's cable connections.

Yeah, I'm almost totally ignorant on this one. I sorta assumed the cable
companies set aside some bandwidth for internet access, and trapped it
out
for non-internet cable subscribers.

No, there's no traps for non-Internet cable subscribers. This is why
you can sometimes go to Best Buy, buy a cable modem, plug it in and
then call the cable company to program it on. Everything to everyone
in your neighbourhood is sent through one or more (unused for TV)
television channels, the cable modem gets it all, picks out those packets
which are addressed to you and discards the rest.

This is `secure' only because the configuration and operation of the
modems is controlled entirely by the operator on the RF side of the modem.
There is a standard called DOCSIS which the modems must conform to which
standardizes the configuration interface and is intended to minimize the
possibility that the user can fiddle with any of it. This seems to work
well enough (and maybe the idea of watching your neighbours' Internet
traffic is boring enough?) that I haven't heard of people hacking the
modems
the way they do digital cable and DBS receivers, though who knows?

In any case, I think whatever permits cable operators to sell their
service will work equally well for BPL since the situations are
exceedingly similar.

Dennis Ferguson


I know there is a trap in my house to keep the cable modem traffic from my
television equipment. I think this is basically to prevent the outgoing data
from interfering with the television equipment. (Outgoing = from me to the
world).

Also, every cable modem has a MAC address and the system's DHCP server would
not provide an IP address unless the MAC address is in the list allowed by
the DHCP server. In this way, normal users get their own data on the cable
modem party line. An unknown cable modem would have trouble connecting to
the net.

That's not to say that someone can't listen in on other's traffic with the
right equipment. Encryption is used to keep the data private.

Relative to BPL. There are traps already in place. BPL signals can't pass
through a transformer. In order to propagate BPL the power company will need
to add bypasses at each transformer.

Since BPL also requires repeaters approx. every 1/4 mile, there may not be
much interference beyond the immediate service areas.

Relative to " I very seldom hear complaints about the security of people's
cable connections". Cable is one big party line, if some on the local
section of the cable has sharing enabled, their system is visible. Everybody
has an IP address and all machines are addressable. If a machine is
lintening, and responds, you can make a connection to it. This why software
and hardware firewalls are important for cable modem users.

Just more fuel for the discussion.

Craig

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:16:48 -0500, Frank Dresser wrote
(in message ):

I suppose, except for the RFI. What can we SWLs do if there's nothing but
BPL hash on the radio?

Frank, I don't know if this is related whatsoever 'cuz I, too, know nothing
about BPL.

When I was in college in the mid 60's, the campus radio station used the
campus power lines rather than a RF transmitter to broadcast.

The main reason I remember it was that there would occasionally be problems
with the signal over power lines (but not the power per se) and soime dorms
could get the station and some - usually one or two - would be cut off for a
day or two.

I'm not sure there is any relationship; just thought I'd throw this up bwg.



Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Entropy Maintenance Technician
Tao Chemical Company
--------------------------

http://www.cybercoffee.org/
Vicksburg, Mississippi US

"craigm" wrote in message
...




I know there is a trap in my house to keep the cable modem traffic from
my
television equipment. I think this is basically to prevent the outgoing
data
from interfering with the television equipment. (Outgoing = from me to the
world).


[snip]


Relative to BPL. There are traps already in place. BPL signals can't pass
through a transformer. In order to propagate BPL the power company will
need
to add bypasses at each transformer.

Yeah, I suppose nearly all farmhouses will be on their own transformer. But
homes in the small towns will usually be sharing transformers. Transformers
will be bypassed unless none of the people in those homes are BPL
subscribers. It seems unlikely the power companies would remove the bypass
if somebody tries BPL and drops it. Apartment houses would almost certainly
get a bypassed transformer.

And lets not forget pushy "promotions". When the cable TV company came to
the town I used to live in, they kept sending cards offering to run the
cables through the house even if we had no intention to subscribe. Such a
deal!! It's wasn't even free coax, because the small print maintains that
they still own the stuff. They might have been using telemarketers as well,
but the phone conversation ends as soon as somebody mistakes me for my
father (Mr. Dresser).

Since BPL also requires repeaters approx. every 1/4 mile, there may not
be
much interference beyond the immediate service areas.

Relative to " I very seldom hear complaints about the security of
people's
cable connections". Cable is one big party line, if some on the local
section of the cable has sharing enabled, their system is visible.
Everybody
has an IP address and all machines are addressable. If a machine is
lintening, and responds, you can make a connection to it. This why
software
and hardware firewalls are important for cable modem users.

Just more fuel for the discussion.

Craig



Keep the fuel coming! Next we'll look for some bottles and rags!!

Frank Dresser

"Gray Shockley" wrote in message
...

Frank, I don't know if this is related whatsoever 'cuz I, too, know
nothing
about BPL.

When I was in college in the mid 60's, the campus radio station used the
campus power lines rather than a RF transmitter to broadcast.

The main reason I remember it was that there would occasionally be
problems
with the signal over power lines (but not the power per se) and soime
dorms
could get the station and some - usually one or two - would be cut off for
a
day or two.

I'm not sure there is any relationship; just thought I'd throw this up
bwg.



Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Entropy Maintenance Technician
Tao Chemical Company
--------------------------

http://www.cybercoffee.org/
Vicksburg, Mississippi US




Reliability is very much related in the general sense that BPL is a largely
unproven technology.

I'd like to know how these transformer bypasses will handle multiple
lightning hits. The pole tranformer gives a bit of lightning surge
protection, and I'd hope the bypassed transformers would be at least as
good.

Frank Dresser

"Gray Shockley" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:16:48 -0500, Frank Dresser wrote
(in message
):

I suppose, except for the RFI. What can we SWLs do if there's nothing
but
BPL hash on the radio?

Frank, I don't know if this is related whatsoever 'cuz I, too, know
nothing
about BPL.

When I was in college in the mid 60's, the campus radio station used the
campus power lines rather than a RF transmitter to broadcast.

The main reason I remember it was that there would occasionally be
problems
with the signal over power lines (but not the power per se) and soime
dorms
could get the station and some - usually one or two - would be cut off for
a
day or two.

I'm not sure there is any relationship; just thought I'd throw this up
bwg.



Gray Shockley


Yeah my dormitory did the same thing 35 years ago so BPL is hardly "new".

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE