Posted on | February 9, 2016 | No Comments
My NSRC colleague Steve Song has this excellent write-up Resolving the Free Basics Paradox on the Indian governments decision to effectively ban Facebook’s “free” internet offering.
I will only add two aspects -lsightly underrepresented, imho – to the discussion:
1/ Not Free
Nothing new here: It is commonplace knowledge by now that “free” of course is not “free” – money/value is flowing from user to company. So even in this case, we should be careful not to call Facebook’s offering something which it is not – it is not free, and it is not internet.
2/ All of it? Not quite.
The other addition is the global context of Facebook’s fight for India – when stating that “Facebook had already won the Internet” (which i find largely to be true) we should add: “won that part of the Internet in which US companies dominate”. There is another half, and it is growing into the most promising future markets (Africa) – and India is right on its doorstep.
This is one motivation for Facebook to throw millions into marketing campaings for their “free internet”. As it may turn out that they are not the only ones who can “connect people”.
The more they become a household commodity, the more they become obsolete and replaceable – the ultimate consequence of the simple fact stated above: it is the user who is the value, not the platform as such.
With those two remarks, i can then only agree with the conclusion: in the name of real free internet, low speed basic free access is the way forward. With freedom of choice about where you put your value.
Posted on | July 30, 2015 | No Comments
Since Microsofts new privacy statements and services agreements are a total of (hard-to-understand) 45 pages,
here is a little extract of the most important things.
This extract is not original research, just a compilation of things found in the root texts and sources quoted below.
Microsoft basically grants itself very broad rights to collect everything you do,
say and write with and on your devices in order to sell more targeted advertising or to sell your data to third parties.
The company appears to be granting itself the right to share your data either with your consent “or as necessary”.
Sync by default
Microsoft will sync settings and data by default with its servers.
This includes your browser history, favorites and the websites you currently have open
as well as saved app, website and mobile hotspot passwords and Wi-Fi network names and passwords.
This is pretty much like how Google Chrome sync works,
however, if you are not comfortable with sharing your usage habits you can deactivate it from settings.
“When you share Your Content with other people, you expressly agree that anyone you’ve shared Your Content with may,
for free and worldwide, use, save, record, reproduce, transmit, display, communicate (and on HealthVault delete) Your Content. ”
“To the extent necessary to provide the Services to you and others (which may include changing the size, shape or format of
Your Content to better store or display it to you), to protect you and the Services and to improve Microsoft products and services,
you grant Microsoft a worldwide and royalty free intellectual property licence to use Your Content, for example,
to make copies of, retain, transmit, reformat, distribute via communication tools and display Your Content on the Services.”
Cortana, the personal assistant
“To enable Cortana to provide personalized experiences and relevant suggestions, Microsoft collects and uses various types of data,
such as your device location, data from your calendar, the apps you use, data from your emails and text messages,
who you call, your contacts and how often you interact with them on your device.
Cortana also learns about you by collecting data about how you use your device and other Microsoft services,
such as your music, alarm settings, whether the lock screen is on, what you view and purchase,
your browse and Bing search history, and more.””
“we collect your voice input, as well your name and nickname,
your recent calendar events and the names of the people in your appointments,
and information about your contacts including names and nicknames.”
Windows 10 generates a unique advertising ID for each user on each device.
That can be used by developers and ad networks to profile you and serve commercial content.
Like data sync, you can turn this off in the Setting menu > Privacy> general > Change privacy option
Microsoft obtains your Encryption key
When device encryption is turned on,
Windows 10 automatically encrypts the drive its installed on and generates a BitLocker recovery key which is backed up to your OneDrive account.
Microsoft WILL disclose your data – in “good faith”
“We will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders),
when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to protect our customers or enforce the terms governing the use of the services.”
Activated by default, WiFi Sense lets you share Wi-Fi network access with your Facebook, Outlook.com, and Skype contacts.
It works in the background, automatically sharing networks you choose to share and downloading credentials for Wi-Fi networks your contacts have shared with you.
The claim is that the sharing stops to function the moment you stop WiFi Sense or stop sharing a certain network.
Note that this is in conflict with their general Content rules that say “once shared, always shared”.
It is also claimed that this will not work for 802.1x protected networks.
Both limitations, with regard to time and type of authentication, are clearly merely imposed by the client.
From a technical point of view, any type of access info may be shared, and may remain shared for unlimited time.
Note that Microsoft admits that when a sharing is revoked, it may take several days (!) for that revocation to come into effect.
This demonstrates the technical issues with the sharing model.
Microsoft Privacy Statement
Microsoft Services Agreement
Posted on | April 17, 2015 | No Comments
It is a bit ironic:
In the wake of the Snowden revelations, only a very few security and encryption technologies were found to still be trusted and uncrackable
(from all we know today).
One of these technologies is
Side note: The terms “OpenPGP”, “PGP”, and “GnuPG / GPG” are often used interchangeably. This is a common mistake, since they are distinctly different.
OpenPGP is technically a proposed standard, although it is widely used. OpenPGP is not a program, and shouldn’t be referred to as such.
PGP and GnuPG are computer programs that implement the OpenPGP standard.
PGP is an acronym for Pretty Good Privacy, a computer program which provides cryptographic privacy and authentication. For more information, see the Wikipedia article.
GnuPG is an acronym for Gnu Privacy Guard, another computer program which provides cryptographic privacy and authentication. For further information on GnuPG, see the Wikipedia article.
Now, the very moment PGP etc is identified as one of the only feasible approaches to “privacy for the common user”,
it is gets under heavy fire, from various sides.
(Some sources for further reading at the bottom of this article)
The criticism mostly targets the follwoing areas
1/ quality/beauty of core code / protocol
2/ usability issues
3/ key management
4/ social / cultural issues
(where 2/ & 3/ might be seen as the same)
2/ usability issues
mainly points at the lack of easy-to-use implementations,
causing users to make grave mistakes like sending their private key out, instead of their public key
(though i would argue that there has been great progress).
An Einsteinism is due, though:
“make things as easy as possible, but dont make them more simple than
In the context of online privacy, Clay Shirky might be wrong when he says:
“Communications tools don’t get socially interesting until they get
technologically boring. The invention of a tool doesn’t create change; it
has to have been around enough that most of society is using it. It’s when
a technology becomes normal, then ubiquitous, and finally so pervasive as
to become invisible, that profound changes happen.”
No level of usablity will get you around the fact that
privacy is a conscious act:
it can (and should) be made easier, but not invisible.
If you don’t get the key idea, you can’t have a locked house.
If you don’t care enough for encryption to keep your key in a safe place,
It will never work for you, no matter how well you have designed your round corners.
If you expect some service out there to make things easier for you, well
then obviously, privacy is not for you.
Tools that allegedly aim at improving the user friendliness of PGP,
often do so at the expense of further corroding the very principle of end-to-end security,
by exposing private keys to browsers (known as insecure) or, worse, your webmail provider.
Tools that bring high quality security to mobile messaging (like TextSecure) do so on operating systems
that are so insecure in themselves that even the suggestion of privacy is misleading.
(It should be noted though that placing trust somewhere might be a viable strategy –
just not an ultimately private one).
3/ key management
problems are best illustrated by what all PGP users experience frequently:
“oh could you send me that unencrypted? i ve changed computer and dont have my key anymore”
“ooooh thats not REALLY my key anymore …”
“ooh … which of my 13 keys DID you use?”
4/ social / cultural issues –
it is true to say that after decades of existence, PGP still has not been able to truly break into the mainstream,
and its user group tends to be nerdy.
PGP is not cool – but it has to be added, for many users email is no longer the preferred choice of communications. Email is not cool.
Even at IT and technical universities, the use of mail clients is far from natural,
and (inherently insecure) webmail, FB messaging, WhatsApp, Kik etc etc is often the norm.
Even SMS – once thought to be THE universal messaging standard –
has been overtaken by WhatsApp –
taking mobile messages into the Facebook platform,
and adding to a surveillance system impressive in its all-inclusiveness.
An illustration of why OpenPGP isn’t mainstream yet: PGP best practices
The BIG SEVEN problems with security
Moxie Marlinspike’s (of Whispersystems/TextSecure) attack on GPG
A rebuttal: GPG Criticism Reaches New Low As Use Cases Expand
Posted on | March 19, 2015 | No Comments
(On the occasion of the IPv6 sessions at http://wireless.ictp.it/school_2015/ – if you are interested in a workshop on this, please contact us!)
How to set up a Raspberry PI, IPv6 enabled filesharing server with ownCloud
1/ Install Ubuntu or Debian or similar
on a Raspberry PI – a PI2 is best.
help on installation is at: http://raspberry.org
2/ USB stick: plug in and mount
On the command line of you Pi, do the following
and then plug in a USB stick and see what device name it shows up as.
typically it is
if in doubt, take USB stick out,
and plug in again, until you see the device name.
you can also do a
#grep sd /var/log/kern.log
#grep usb /var/log/kern.log
to help you find it.
in what follows, we assume it is
and mount it:
#mount -t vfat -o rw /dev/sda1 /media/usbstick/
#cd /home/<your username>
#sh -c “echo ‘deb http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/isv:/ownCloud:/community/xUbuntu_14.04/ /’ >> /etc/apt/sources.list.d/owncloud.list”
#apt-key add – < Release.key
#apt-get install owncloud
put the data directory on the stick and symlink it:
#cp -R ./* /media/usbstick/data/
#rm -rf ./data
#ln -s /media/usbstick/data/
Instead of the symlink, you could also edit
in your owncloud directory, and point at the data directory on the usb stick:
‘datadirectory’ => ‘/path/to/your/data’,
At this point, you should have an ownCloud server, reachable on
4/ Make it IPv6
Edit your apache’s site configuration
to start with this:
of course you do this with your IPv6 address, which you can find by doing
Then restart apache:
you should now have an IPv6 ownCloud server.
5/ Put this on your home’s DSL (or what your connection might be)
If you do this at home, you might now want to put this on your routers’ DMZ.
Posted on | May 28, 2014 | No Comments
This might not be strictly wireless, but it s a good use of DIY technology anyway: old mobile phones make excellent microscopes, for use in telemedicine (e.g. blood checks), water quality monitoring, etc.
The cost is almost zero – apart from the phone itself, everything can be built from scrap parts.
This model here loosely follows the instructions on http://www.iflscience.com/ & http://www.instructables.com/id/10-Smartphone-to-digital-microscope-conversion/ (thanks!) and was built by Lars Yndal at the PITLab at ITU Copenhagen – http://pit.itu.dk
Click image for larger view.
Posted on | June 9, 2013 | No Comments
“There was a recent news item regarding a teenager’s project to use a super capacitor as a quick-charging energy storage device. The primary claim is that this could be used to fully charge a phone in just 30 seconds.”
Luckily, Wired put a physicist on the case, and he discusses this in much length.
Maybe a bit too complicated for most people.
Here s a simplified version (not precise, just testing whether this is realistic at all):
To charge a mobile phone (battery is typically 1500 mAh at 3.7 V or 5-6 Wh) in 30 secs,
you d need about 600 -700 W for those 30 seconds. Pretty hot.
The energy needed would be about 20,000 J
The energy stored in a capacitor is
W = 0.5 * C * V**2
so that wouldgive
C = 1600 F
Do such capacitors exist?
Yes, they are called supercaps, and no, Khare did not develop them.
They have been used in lost of electronics for decades.
They are inside some of the stuff you use.
You can get them on ebay:
A supercap of 1600 F would be a bit too big for your phone, but
since her work,
in fact looks at improving (rather than “inventing”) supercaps,
it s not entirely impossible that you d see something like this, at some point in time.
just not next week.
Her report claims
“an energy density of 20.1 Wh/kg, comparable to batteries,
while maintaining a high power density of 20540 W/kg.”
The energy density limit would make her current supercap about 250 grams –
a bit heavy still, but the right way to go and the rest, that’s gradual improvement.
So, not possible – not all bad, just reported by most media in a wrong way.
Posted on | June 7, 2013 | 1 Comment
Last week i attended the TV White Spaces Africa Forum 2013
It was an event organised and largely sponsored by Google in partnership with a number of other organisations,
including Microsoft http://www.microsoft.com/,
Internet Society Senegal http://www.isoc.sn/,
Afrinic http://www.afrinic.net/, APC http://www.apc.org/,
and the Senegalese Ministry of Communication, Telecommunications and the Digital Economy
There s plenty of tweets, https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TVWSAfrica,
and Steve Song, now also a fellow NSRCrian, has an excellent summary here:http://manypossibilities.net/2013/06/tv-white-spaces-in-africa/
– to which i’d like to add a few thoughts:
( Steve’s lines in italics, comments in bold.)
Both [Microsoft and Google] stand to benefit from having more Africans affordably online and in this particular case, their corporate goals are fairly well-aligned with a development goal.
In some areas, goals are well-aligned, in other areas – like local ownership, network neutrality, control and openness of data they are in conflict.
There is the very fundamental question of why african networks and services should be run, and user profiles and profits be harvested by non-african companies.
What stuck in my mind from this session was an interesting analogy
shared by Kai Wulff who pointed out that in Africa, taxi drivers
generally don’t fill up their tank completely but just enough to get
where they need to go. Similarly, pay-as-you-go airtime has allows for
dynamic management of phone charges. This is common knowledge but it
was a nice insight that this conceptual framework might be applied to
It could be argued that the underlying logic and reasons for this,
e.g. the non-availability of capital on personal and organizational level,
should be challenged rather than solidified and capitalized on –
but that is a general comment, outside the scope of this conferences’ theme.
Arno Hart, TENET’s project manager for the [Cape Town] trial, presented the work of
the trial so far. So far 10 schools have been connected representing
more than 6400 students. So far the technology has met its most
important goal which is demonstrating non-interference with television
Cape Town has more active terrestrial television broadcast
channels than most place in South Africa so it was ideal for a trial of
TVWS. The throughput and latency of the connectivity is not quite the
10mbps over 8km that has been advertised but it was still respectable
It is evident that TVWS technology is still evolving and performance
improvements can be expected.
The focus of this trial was in fact to look at interference, in an urban privileged environment, rather than at performance in a rural, low density environment, in which we see the greatest potential of this technology.
The performance as such is far from what can be achieved in the 2.4 and 5 Ghz bands, for such a link.
It lead some people to note that, performance wise, of all these trials could have been done better in spectrum that already is open (2.4 and 5 GHz)).
(… The Kenya Mawingu project: …)
A video is at https://vimeo.com/60073409 –
i d be interested in people’s comments on its narrative.
There was some discussion among the participants as to whether an
authentication database was the best approach to TVWS for Africa. Some
people argued that this was importing unnecessary limitations from the
from highly developed (urban) areas rather than remote low density environments
(in which TVWS has its greatest innovative potential)
and essentially tying Africa to a western agenda and blocking innovation rather than enabling it.
It is an interesting question. On the one hand, I would like to
see TVWS achieve the same kind of success that WiFi has through an
unlicensed environment. I fear that constraints such as an
authentication database might limit the uptake of the technology.
Certainly, the idea of having to connect
to a remote database in order to just start equipment
is somewhat of a horror scenario for network deployers out in remote fields and community networkers alike.
But, from a regulators perspective, there is no necessity to limit equipment and innovative use in this way,
and one might hope the inextricability will not be interpreted in this way.
From an african regulators perspective, the US – or generally external – database is not needed in order to get started – databases may be build along the way, and be controlled on national or regional level.
As these databases could and will become increasingly dynamic,
they carry enormous economic value and control potential.
They add one more layer to (already impressive) corporate mapping, surveillance and profiling technology.
The question of whether they will be run and owned by private global companies
and/or national/regional organizations deserves attention.
In order for TVWS [to] achieve the same kind of success that WiFi has through an
unlicensed environment, it will take the same essentials:
unlicensed spectrum, open standards, community interest, sub-$100 gear.
Unlicensed spectrum (Wifi) – not the mobile operators spectrum – today carries the larger part of all mobile data traffic. There is something to learn from this, also for #TVWSAfrica.
Posted on | May 4, 2013 | 1 Comment
putting the green window plug into perspective:
Posted on | August 14, 2012 | No Comments
Steve Houben, Sebastian Buettrich
Arduino Touché @pITlab –
all credits & thanks: DZL, Mads Hobye
we followed their instructable 100% and it worked straight away.
Posted on | August 8, 2012 | 1 Comment
Second comment to the security debate, e.g. here
So MSCHAPv2 is completely broken. No problem.
For EAP/802.1x wireless security, that should not matter, as we only use it inside a tunnel (TTLS, PEAP) (SSL protected).
Popular EAP/802.1x-methods: PEAP+MSCHAPv2 or TTLS+PAP or TTLS+MSCHAPv2
In most networks, on most clients, certificate validation is largely absent
and difficult to enforce across all clients (BYOD!).
Moreover, many user guidelines explicitly ask clients to NOT validate the certificate.
A very simple, realistic attack scenario:
Place a rogue AP with the right SSID and connected to a fake RADIUS server in the target building/area,
and harvest logons at leisure.
No client has any chance to even notice the attack.
So, the tunnel is broken.
The fact that MSCHAPv2 is broken – it does not even really matter:
the attacker lures the client into talking to their rogue RADIUS server,
and of course can read all user credentials, regardless of encryption.
This is NOT a little irrelevant side note to the discussion of MSCHAPv2, which is, i agree, more intellectually interesting.
The MSCHAPv2 discussion unfortunately is an interesting academic but irrelevant side note to the fact that our de-facto wireless security practices render EAP/802.1x broken.
Unless the certificate validation problem is addressed,
we should consider current wireless security with EAP/802.1x completely broken / obsolete.
Agreed – it would not have to be, but it is.keep looking »