Talk:Bluetooth/Archive 2009

Profiles for Bluetooth v2

Any new profiles being introduced with Bluetooth 2?

Is there a bluetooth v1.6?

Currently widely prevailing BT version is 2.1 +EDR. And the BT 3.0 which will be the next important level is under standardization. Regarding BT version 1.6, BT1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 2.1+EDR are commonly know one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.118.108.254 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Devices

Hey,

I was just wondering if a Bluetooth enabled laptop can connect to multiple devices at the same time. For example, can I use a bluetooth-mouse and a bluetooth speaker set at the same time?

Thanks,

I think so yes. Chillum 05:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluetooth Security FUD

The "Bluetooth IEEE 802.15.1 vs. Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11 in networking" states that WiFi has better security than Bluetooth. There is no source for this cited (and as far as I know WEP is less secure than Bluetooth combination link key encryption).

I would recommend that this is removed unless it is clarified (and the moment it seems like FUD spreading).

--Jas203 (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - this is an assertion so should be removed or citation given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.42.78 (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It does need a citation, but it is largely accurate. The latest versions of Bluetooth (2.1 and 3.0) are far more secure than prior versions, and may compare favorably with WiFi (depending on the key exchange implementation), but WPA and (especially) WPA2 allow for encryption strengths that are currently much better than previous implementations allowed, especially since the strength of the older implementations increased linearly as the passcode's length extended. Martin Blank (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've no doubt that the AES encryption is potentially stronger than E0 - and also that the authentication method used in Bluetooth was weaker (along with the link key and thus encryption key entropy is directly related to the PIN code used). It was just that it would be unfair, for example, to have text on the WiFi page to be saying that Bluetooth was more secure because of Secure Simple Pairing when compared to WEP. The section needs to be expanded to be more accurate, I'll have a think about it.

Bluetooth is limited to 100m range by design because of TX/RX timing constraints?

I came across a posted comment along the lines of "Bluetooth range is limited to 30 or 100 meters (regardless of antenna or transmit power) because timing in the electronics limits how far a signal can travel before it's ignored because of how a bluetooth device switches between Tx and Rx."

Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.15.187 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Security Concerns maybe not as concerning as indicated

The Security Concerns section in the article indicates that EPR allows the identification of a security attack v.s. normal operation.

The security attack is turning encryption off, and to turn it off an ACL link must have encryption enabled, which means that the ACL link must have been authenticated (by pairing). So the device "attacking" already is receiving the data and so exposing it to eavesdropping isn't really an attack, it is a poor implementation. EPR does allow the host guarding against these poor implementations to respond quicker, but with limited improvement on security.

This is what I think, but I thought I should solicit feedback before making any change to the article.

--Jas203 (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues with the security section. One of them has to do with the PIN-cracking, which I know was done (though not released) by Josh Wright around the spring of 2006 at a SANS conference in Orlando. The section is better than it used to be, but still needs some improvement, though I'm not really the one to be able to address it accurately enough myself. Martin Blank (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree there are issues that are still true (such as the PIN cracking, and other attacks) - however I thought this particular (EPR) based discussion was potential distracting from actual issues. I'll have a think about how it could be improved. --Jas203 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is bluetooth really limited to 100 m range?

Bluetooth is limited to 100m range by design because of TX/RX timing constraints?

I came across a posted comment along the lines of "Bluetooth range is limited to 30 or 100 meters (regardless of antenna or transmit power) because timing in the electronics limits how far a signal can travel before it's ignored because of how a bluetooth device switches between Tx and Rx."

Is this true?

(and please do not remove this question. This could be a very important aspect of bluetooth technology) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bluetooth 3

when will bluetooth 3 be available and what will be transfer rate ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.206.1 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Bluetooth 3.0+HS was adopted by the Bluetooth SIG in April 2009, so it strictly speaking is available today. As to when it will be available in products is dependant on manufacturers - however for devices that already include a Bluetooth 2.1+EDR controller and an 802.11 capable radio implementing 3.0+HS can be implemented purely in software. --Jas203 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Latency

What is the latency for this connection? Does this affect usability on HIDs? Full Decent (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)