# Question about terminology



## Cloud Cover (14 Sep 2005)

Can anyone provide a response to the following issue: 

What is the difference between "non-secure wireless transmission of data" and "considered to be an insecure method of wireless communications."

Are these terms of art that have meaning, or is it just a question of semantics? 


Cheers.


----------



## genesis98 (15 Sep 2005)

From reading this "Non-secure wireless transmission" sounds like you TX in the Clear, but have the capability to go Secure

"considered to be an insecure method of wireless communications" - either has no secure features what soever or very limited, possible off the shelf encryption.


----------



## Sig_Des (16 Sep 2005)

genesis98 said:
			
		

> From reading this "Non-secure wireless transmission" sounds like you TX in the Clear, but have the capability to go Secure
> 
> "considered to be an insecure method of wireless communications" - either has no secure features what soever or very limited, possible off the shelf encryption.



Sounds about right


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Sep 2005)

Okay, I'm glad there are some answers. Now to add context. I'm talking about very long range [don't ask] blue tooth communications between an accessory device [not a head set or other typical accessory] and a wireless handheld device. When the tx is sent "scrambled" but not encrypted, I'm told it is "insecure." When the tx is strongly encrypted, it is "designed to be secure." The "design" means that it is "computationally infeasible" to break the algorithim. 

So, without encryption is the transmission still "insecure", or is it "non-secure" or perhaps something else? 

Cheers.


----------



## Bert (17 Sep 2005)

I'll wade into the waters...

Referencing the initial post, the descriptions may represent semantics as you say.     One may refers to
"non-secure communications" as WHAT it is and "insecure method..." as HOW it is presented.

The term "scrambled", in a telecommunications context, is a very casual and general term to describe
the distortion of content contained within RF signals. 

"Encryption" is a specific term where software, one or a set of algorythms, masks or encodes data before
 it is transmitted.   The recipient requires the correct decryption algorythm (s) to decode the data.

Both represent the same basic process, but the term "scambling" comes from another era of communications.

If the product manufacturer is using "scrambling and encryption" interchangeably, then likey he is referrring
to the same encryption process but in non-technical terms.     The only way to circumvent the use of terms is 
to ask what type or method of encryption/scrambling is being discussed.

Using any method of RF broadcast, all signals are receivable by anyone with appropriate equipment.   If the signals
are receivable by anyone, then the content the signals carry may be deciferable.   If deciferable, then it is certainly
insecure and non-secure.   Layers of encryption at the source mask the data so the received content is difficult 
or near-impossible to decifer without appropriate decryption software.   Given the assumed quality of the encryption, 
the likelihood of someone decifering the content is made relative from secure to insecure/non-secure.

Transmissions are non-secure and in-secure (also referred to as "in-the-clear") if recipients are able to
decode the data with standard protocols and formats.   Transmissions are made to be secure if there
is an attempt to mask the data by encryption so standard formats and protocols cannot decifer the
content except by the intended recipient.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Sep 2005)

Bert said:
			
		

> I'll wade into the waters...
> 
> Referencing the initial post, the descriptions may represent semantics as you say.     One may refers to
> "non-secure communications" as WHAT it is and "insecure method..." as HOW it is presented.



Thats what I was looking for, thanks.



> "If the product manufacturer is using "scrambling and encryption" interchangeably, then likey he is referrring
> to the same encryption process but in non-technical terms.     The only way to circumvent the use of terms is
> to ask what type or method of encryption/scrambling is being discussed.



Oddly, when encrypted, the communication between the blue tooth devices is using ECC technology, the ECDH algorithim. [the symmetric version, not the hybrid]. So, when not encrypted, it is what- just wireless data transmitted in the clear? Is that what regular blue tooth comms are? The wireless device uses assymetric encryption in transit in the wireless network, and apparently switches to another type of encryption when switched to the internet from specific radio relays. [/quote] 



> Transmissions are non-secure and in-secure (also referred to as "in-the-clear") if recipients are able to
> decode the data with standard protocols and formats.   Transmissions are made to be secure if there
> is an attempt to mask the data by encryption so standard formats and protocols cannot decifer the
> content except by the intended recipient.



Nothing standard about this thing. 

Thanks for assistance.


----------



## Radop (28 Oct 2005)

Any wireless device is open to intercept.  If it is not encrypted by some means, it could result in data falling into another person(s) hands.  Bluetooth technology by itself is "considered to be an insecure method of wireless communications" and therefore is a "Non-secure wireless transmission" and should be safeguarded as such.  Only unclas items should pass by these means.  This is no different than a regular telephone or cell phone.  Encryption doesn't stop intercept but it does limit or stop the loss of data to those who have intercepted the signal.

Hope this helps


----------

