'BlueBag' PC Sniffs Out Bluetooth Flaws

An anonymous reader writes "Why isn't Bluetooth set to "hidden" in all of Nokia's phones? Some hackers in Italy stuffed a computer with a bunch of Bluetooth dongles in a suitcase to see how many Bluetooth devices they could discover by wandering around airports, train stations and shopping malls. The answer? More than 1,400 in 23 hours." The team will present their findings at BlackHat later this summer.

Ok, so they discovered a whole lot of phones

[Alarash]

Many comments say "Ok, so they discovered a lot of phones, that doesn't mean they could hack into each one of them", which is true and also acknowledged by the researchers (hence the use of the word "potential" in TFA). I, for one, turn my bluetooth on only when I need to synch it with my laptop. I don't even use a "bionic man bluetooth headset" because I find these ridiculous.

However, I'd like to know what are the dangers when leaving the Bluetooth enabled on my cell phone. I set it up to require an code to bond. But that doesn't mean I'm safe, I guess. Are there any known exploits, widely used, or easy to setup, for hacking Bluetooth phones? Especially Sony-Ericsson and HP iPaq, since these are the ones I use.

Re:The English Language is *NOT* a Democracy

[mjh]

You are certainly welcome to believe whatever you wish. However, you're ignoring something that I think is important: folly is in the eye of the beholder. There was a time when it was considered slang to say "don't" and "won't", or any other contractions. The only contraction that remains as slang is "ain't", but even that's in the dictionary now.

Is the transformation of "don't" and "won't" language evolution? Yes, sure. But if you argue that the transfermation of "dongle" is not language evolution, I would have to disagree with you. The mechanism by which "don't" and "won't" became acceptable is the same mechanism by which "dongle" has taken on more than one meaning. People using it understood it and accepted it.

The vast majority of people who use "dongle" accept that it can mean something more than a license verification device. And the evidence for this is the large number of people who say "bluetooth dongle" and seem to understand what it means. The old meaning will only be upheld by the minority wishing to retain semantic purity. Frankly, I think the distinction you make between "educated technology expert" and "gansta moron" is a bit to broad brushed. I use "dongle" the way that you dislike and I get paid a lot of money to be a technology expert. My company is not willing to pay for any type of moron, gansta or not. The use of "dongle" is simply not something they consider in their hiring practices. The use of the word "crib" to mean my home, might not be very well received during an interview. But "dongle" seems to have received much wider spread acceptance than "crib".

About the only thing I agree with is that language is not a democracy. It's much more decentralized than even that. It's a market. What we get is the ability to communicate. What we pay is flexibility. If you're inflexible, you can't continue to participate in the market. Soon you won't be able to understand anyone outside of your semantically pure circle, nor will anyone else be able to understand you.

Good luck with that.

Here's my question for you: if you believe that language is not decentralized, then who is in control? Where are the edicts describing when we're going to start using "bit" to mean "binary digit", or "internet" to mean globally connected computer network? You might say that the dictionaries decide, but they don't. They reflect the changes that have already happened. They don't make those changes. So, if it's not a decentralized process, where are the central authorities deciding what new words that none of us have heard of we're going to use? In my entire life, I don't remember ever reading one.