41
A whole lot of vulnerabilities apparently exist in Meshtastic encryption? (partyon.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/meshtastic@mander.xyz
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Thoughts on this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Is it legal to encrypt communications in the spectrum meshtastic is using?

I had thought it was not and therefore could not be built into the protocol and so securing communications (potentially illegally) is left as an exercise for the reader.

Is that not so?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's apparently legal if you don't enable ham mode. Not a lawyer etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    in the US at least its about broadcast power level. HAMs can broadcast louder but cant enable encryption. default firmware shipped to the US limits your power level so you remain legal.

    *i should add that is MY understanding of the situation and i'm no lawyer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    You have it correct. If you're using ham mode, you're allowed to use more power, but hams cannot have encrypted data. Therefore, ham mode is disabled by default.

    Also with Ham Mode, if you do enable it, you can only talk to other nodes also using Ham Mode, unencrypted. Therefore, you lose access to the majority of the mesh, which makes it kind of pointless, except for experiments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent