using wifi 2 intercept cordless phon call

[sentinal]

hi
do u think it's possible 2 use wifi or bluetooth 2 intecept calls that made threw
cordless phon that use 2.4 Ghz freq?

[Second]

hi
do u think it's possible 2 use wifi or bluetooth 2 intecept calls that made threw
cordless phon that use 2.4 Ghz freq?

No....are you insane?

:)

[Salem]

hi
do u think it's possible 2 use wifi or bluetooth 2 intecept calls that made threw
cordless phon that use 2.4 Ghz freq?

Feel free to check out the Rules. Make sure to check out rule 5 under Culture Guidelines.
Other thoughts: Spellcheck is your friend. Phrase your question in a manner that wouldnt make a person with an IQ above 12 cringe, then repost your question. Dont forget to check out the search feature near the top of the page, and see if anyone else has posted the same question.

[highwizard]

Feel free to check out the Rules. Make sure to check out rule 5 under Culture Guidelines.
Other thoughts: Spellcheck is your friend. Phrase your question in a manner that wouldnt make a person with an IQ above 12 cringe, then repost your question. Dont forget to check out the search feature near the top of the page, and see if anyone else has posted the same question.

You're not TheCotMan, so don't try to be.

[Salem]

You're not TheCotMan, so don't try to be.

I dont try to be TheCotMan. It just annoys me when a person can somehow miss every sticky on all the pages they go through to make a post. Its not tough to read the rules, it only takes a few minutes, and there are warnings all over the place saying to do so. I just dont get it.

[TheCotMan]

Do you think it's possible to use WiFi or bluetooth to intecept calls that are made through cordless phones that use 2.4 Ghz freq?

I would expect that this is not likely trivial.
Why? Just because two things share a common radio/microwave frequency, does not mean they can "listen" to content.
First, you have two common and very different choices for cordless phones (analog and digital) even though the 2.4GHz is predominantly digital.
If digital, there are many ways to "chop up" a signall into discrete chunks, and the amount of time you allow for each "chunk" before processing. This is often set in hardware and circuits with specific timing and clocks which may be fixed. (To save processing, some systems will just drop invalid data, and not pass anything "invalid" up to the next layer for payload processing.)
Clock frequencies for 802.11* are probably much faster (better resolution) than cordless phones, but this is still a problem.
There are other considerations too.... like phones that use different frequencies for Tx vs. Rx. or proprietary encoding and multiplexing for sharing the same frequency.
If it is possible, hardware mods would likely be required, and a special driver would need to be built to capture the data on a computer in a format that you desire, and be able to "listen" to multiple frequencies as needed.

And there are even more problems than what I have listed here... Frequency Hopping, Spread Spectrum, Encryption, etc.

I dont try to be TheCotMan.

Heh heh. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

(People in background sigh in relief and say, "Thank God!") :-)

[astcell]

Notice how lack of spelling ability goes along with lack of hacking ability? Hmmm is there a correlation here? Maybe to write code one needs to understand that codes don't appreciate typos?

[sentinal]

first: this is not my native lang' (where is the spellcheck ?)

second: this is just a quastion- i don't have the abillity to do that.

third:as far as i know- the 2.4 Ghz phon r digital & have some inscription code
i thought that wifi or bluetooth can "feel" the broadcast but ignor all thos
that not working in their protocol (?) . so if that the case why can we "tell"
them not to ignor some unick protocol, then to capture tha data and to do
another procces of revers ingeniring that convert the data to audio.

[Thorn]

first: this is not my native lang' (where is the spellcheck ?)
...

1A: All the languages I know, and know of, use capital letters at the start of sentences. Plus all employ variety of punctuation characters such as commas, periods and question marks to aid in the readers' interpretation of the writer's words. Even if English is not your primary language, your inconsistent use of such things indicates laziness, not a lack understanding of English grammar.

1B: A spell checker is best used to find typographical errors. You still needed to know how to spell. Install a forum spell checker on you own computer if you feel you really need one, or use some other program’s spell check in combination with Cut-and-Paste.

1C: You seem to have a good grasp of various tenses of words for one who claims that English is a second language. It is odd that while you can do that, you can't spell or type correctly. Again, it would appear laziness is the issue here.

...
second: this is just a quastion- i don't have the abillity to do that.
...

2: Sure, ask all the questions you want, but understand that the DC Forums aren’t a Help Desk. You might be better served by doing some research yourself, or at least finding a forum that deals with such things on a technical level.

...
third:as far as i know- the 2.4 Ghz phon r digital & have some inscription code
i thought that wifi or bluetooth can "feel" the broadcast but ignor all thos
that not working in their protocol (?) . so if that the case why can we "tell"
them not to ignor some unick protocol, then to capture tha data and to do
another procces of revers ingeniring that convert the data to audio.

3: You seem to understand that there are completely different protocols and modulation types involved. What you seem to be missing is the point that each of theses requires it’s own circuitry or processor to operate. From an engineering standpoint. it is much easier to reject as noise those signals that are unknown to the device, than it is to accept all signals and fit them into an appropriate circuit and interpert them.

Current consumer-level wireless devices, whether they are 802.11b/g, 2.4GHz wireless telephones, Bluetooth devices, or other devices in the ISM band lack the appropriate circuitry to interpert all signals. They only understand the signals they specifically designed to use.

While a device could be designed and built that would cover a variety of protocols and modulations, you would need to include circuitry which would cover each and every type that you expect to see and wish to interpert. Actually there are such devices out there, in the form of very expensive spectrum and protocol analyzers. However, costs for such device usually start in the vicinity of $25000.

Bottom line: You are not going to capture or interpert a Bluetooth or WiFi signal using the $10 2.4GHz phone from Best Buy. Likewise, your Linksys Access Point is not going to capture digital audo from your phone, or other Bluetooth data. Ech one lacks the appropriate circuits to understand the protocols and modulations used by the other devices.

[sentinal]

well Thorn
In hebrew we don't use capital latter in the begining of a sentec. - now u lerned another thing today.
Thank u for the last part of your answer.

[Thorn]

well Thorn
in hebrew we don't use capital latter in the begining of a sentec. - now u lerned another thing today.
thank u for the last part of your answer.

Point taken, and thanks for a bit of knowledge. Hebrew is not a language which I've even looked. The closest I've come to it is a tiny amount of Yiddish that I've picked up from friends. However, I still find it odd that you know things like "u" for "you".

Regarding the last part, you're welcome.

[theprez98]

I still find it odd that you know things like "u" for "you".

You've never seen the Hebrew keyboard?!

[evad123]

With regard to the question regarding the ability of use of a WLAN or Bluetooth device to intercept calls in progress over the air interface from a 2.4GHz Cordless phone.

The short answer is no, the chipset used within a WLAN or Bluetooth client adaptor (or access point for that matter), is optimised to receive or transmit WLAN (or Bluetooth respectively) signals. To intercept signals from devices using a differing protocol (such as typically used in a cordless phone) your need different hardware.

To explain further, for a WiFi receiver the push within the industry over the last few years is to drive chipset and design costs down for the OEM providers, to this end there has been a gradual integration of the RF IQ and Baseband processing, and higher level protocol elements of the transceivers onto single chips. The upshot of this is
a) the chips are cheaper
b) the receiver is specialised and thus stripped of general purpose functionality
An example of this is the Atheros chipsets used in proxim, linksys devices etc AR5006 Datasheet

A better bet for the interception task you are looking for would be a general purpose digital receiver of which the baseband output could be analysed via signal processing to extract information (i.e. from a cordless phone), this is the approach used by SigInt community for general purpose surveillance and there are many higher end products for just this task ( Watkins Johnson VXI Receiver etc )
However for the home user (and over a much reduced tuning range) there are lower end products made by the likes of WinRadio & Icom that provide PC controllable receivers that might meet your needs.

Hope this helps

Dave