![]() |
|
|||||||
| Register | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#31 (permalink) | |
|
Sniffin' the aether
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: A little North of Reason
Posts: 2,751
|
Quote:
Disclaimer: Can result in explosive launch of rodent with resultant broken nose of observer.
__________________
Try a tube of the new lube, Obamacaine! They won't feel the shaft until it's too late! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 (permalink) | |
|
Asshole Emeritus
Join Date: May 2003
Location: S.E. VA.
Posts: 5,939
|
Quote:
__________________
"Benjamin is nobody's friend. If Benjamin were an ice cream flavor, he'd be pralines and dick." Sons of Confederate Veterans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 (permalink) |
|
Crazed Fool
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 44
|
The best solution I see here is one of combining a hardware triangulation system with your standard wardriving rig. Unfortunately, it seems that there is no reliable way to synchronize any of the data collection in a standard rig to get accurate differentials in time. The other problem is, unlike the traditional use in fox hunts, we're working with a signal that spans a decent amount of spectrum, where several APs within range might be sharing the same airspace. This being the case, your hardware triangulation unit would have to be able to identify no only the raw signal, but also which AP it is coming from, and do it all with enough time left over to make accurate triangulation calculations. I don't think this will end up being possible, much less reasonably accomplished without some rather large and expensive custom hardware.
|
|
|
|