this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
186 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

81907 readers
7396 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
186
New AirSnitch attack breaks Wi-Fi encryption in homes, offices, and enterprises (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 day ago by gedaliyah@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Unlike previous Wi-Fi attacks, AirSnitch exploits core features in Layers 1 and 2 and the failure to bind and synchronize a client across these and higher layers, other nodes, and other network names such as SSIDs (Service Set Identifiers). This cross-layer identity desynchronization is the key driver of AirSnitch attacks.

The most powerful such attack is a full, bidirectional machine-in-the-middle (MitM) attack, meaning the attacker can view and modify data before it makes its way to the intended recipient. The attacker can be on the same SSID, a separate one, or even a separate network segment tied to the same AP. It works against small Wi-Fi networks in both homes and offices and large networks in enterprises.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] paks@feddit.uk 36 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If I'm understanding correctly, this is saying that isolation between different clients on the same VLAN is broken? But this attack doesn't break isolation between VLANs?

So the major issue is if you've got a guest network on the same VLAN as your main network

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Basically every single one of those Xfinity Wifi boxes that people got for free in their household thanks to Concast and their skeezy attempt to bolster their "mobile" network.

[–] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

What would the legality be of listening to people's phone calls if they are connecting to your personal home network without your permission to make them?

[–] Sanguine@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article does seem to indicate that isolation between VLANs is still secure assuming its set up correctly. A lot of folks set up VLANs but never complete the firewall rules afterwards.