Airport Wifi is [highly likely] actually spying on you

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Airport Wifi is [highly likely] actually spying on you

1 | 2

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409
Inactive user

#3186007 24-Jan-2024 18:10

muppet:

Wombat1:

This is why I use wireguard to my home network. My phone just switches to it when connecting over any foreign network or LTE. Very handy little app and adds hardly any latency. Nobody can snoop my stuff.

I believe some people can snoop your stuff, if they've got reason to do so.

Ah no you wrong.... Nobody can snoop my stuff.

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409
Inactive user

#3186008 24-Jan-2024 18:13

muppet: @PolicyGuy Yeah, my point was they don't need to break his mobile wireguard if they have a tap on his ISP line. But I didn't make that very clear.

Considering that I live in Aus I think that is going to be quite a challenge for the NZ police. Besides I was talking about the local Wifi network here, and the wireguard connection between my mobile over some dodgy airport wifi, and my home network/ISP. Agreed ISP can do some bad things.

boosacnoodle

1281 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 862

#3186149 24-Jan-2024 21:57

Even if you intercept from the "ISP line" - whatever that means - SnapChat is end-to-end encrypted, so it would be pointless.

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409
Inactive user

#3186173 24-Jan-2024 23:09

boosacnoodle:

Even if you intercept from the "ISP line" - whatever that means - SnapChat is end-to-end encrypted, so it would be pointless.

I would not trust all that these social media and chat services tell us, they mostly all tell us what we want to hear. What is their definition of end-to-end encryption? Is the data still encrypted when it is being transmitted between their servers, or when its on their servers? Can anybody at Snapchat corp read or see your messages?

They state the following in their T&C

Content that violates our Community Guidelines will be subject to removal. Users who share, promote, or distribute violating content will be notified of the violation. Severe or repeated violations of our policies will impact a user’s account access.

As much as I agree with the policy, one does have to wonder how they would know if somebody is violating their guidelines if they claim to not be intercepting anything.

Sexual Content | Community Guidelines Explainer (snap.com)

jnimmo

1098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 255

#3186178 24-Jan-2024 23:38

Just would make a slight suggested tweak to the vocabulary here- end to end encryption (such as provided by apps like Signal) refers to encrypted between the sender and recipient (meaning the messaging provider cannot view it). Snapchat only encrypt traffic between end users and their servers.

plas

456 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 59

#3186320 25-Jan-2024 11:08

Still doesn't explain how the wifi at the airport "picked up" on the message, I assume this was just terrible reporting, or we are seeing some Government level breaking of SSL, or Snapchat is leaking something outside https. Otherwise all the network sees is an encrypted connection to the snapchat servers from the mobile, not the content.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

jnimmo

1098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 255

#3186325 25-Jan-2024 11:22

plas:

Still doesn't explain how the wifi at the airport "picked up" on the message, I assume this was just terrible reporting, or we are seeing some Government level breaking of SSL, or Snapchat is leaking something outside https. Otherwise all the network sees is an encrypted connection to the snapchat servers from the mobile, not the content.

It's been touched on in this thread already - the most plausible explanation is poor reporting potentially some nuance lost in translation - likely tip off was via one of the recipients in the group chat, accidentally posted the snap publicly instead of to the group, or potentially detected through automated Snapchat content moderation.

Bung

6734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2927

Subscriber

#3186333 25-Jan-2024 11:58

Accidentally or one of the recipients decided to deliberately drop him into trouble. Regardless, impressive response time.

wellygary

8813 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5299

#3186336 25-Jan-2024 12:11

There's a bit more detailed reporting on it here, and surprisingly for the Daily mail online its actually reasonably informed,

It seems that's it the defendant claiming its Gatwick who outed him - I guess because then there is another party they can drag in to cover damages,

"The Brit's defence lawyer said in her emotionally-charged closing speech Aditya's comments in a 'private group' had become public without any judicial authorisation and if anyone should be held responsible for the cost of the Spanish response it should be the British authorities for 'breaching his right to privacy.' "

Although I think this is a bit like arguing you have a free speech right to yell fire in a move theatre.... not gonna fly...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13000923/snooped-airport-wifi-cyber-expert-warn-monitoring-chess-terror-alert-bombing-plane.html

Tinkerisk

4800 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3660

#3186604 26-Jan-2024 02:31

https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/25/push-notifications-leak-user-data/

Qui nihil scit, omnia credere debet.
Firewalls do NOT stop dragons.
In effect we have everything to hide from someone, and no idea who someone is.

1 | 2