|
2008-10-28
, 13:09
|
Posts: 605 |
Thanked: 137 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ La Rochelle, France
|
#12
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fredoll For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2008-10-28
, 13:35
|
|
Posts: 354 |
Thanked: 93 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ New York
|
#13
|
|
2008-10-28
, 19:15
|
Posts: 129 |
Thanked: 13 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
|
#14
|
|
2008-10-31
, 16:54
|
|
Posts: 716 |
Thanked: 236 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#15
|
|
2008-10-31
, 17:29
|
|
Posts: 880 |
Thanked: 264 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Cambridge, UK
|
#16
|
|
2008-11-07
, 19:03
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#17
|
|
2008-11-07
, 20:11
|
Posts: 65 |
Thanked: 11 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
|
#18
|
|
2008-11-08
, 05:10
|
Posts: 68 |
Thanked: 18 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#19
|
|
2008-11-08
, 15:40
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#20
|
The Following User Says Thank You to allnameswereout For This Useful Post: | ||
My point is about BlueTooth 2.0 cryptography (using linear feedback shift register), and BlueTooth tracking in general (lack of hidden mode / temporary visible).
Just because you don't care about a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I believe the choice between BlueTooth 1.2 and 2.0 is in this case a conscious, important choice.
Now stop stalking me. Creep.
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!