To what extent can professors see what is sent between students

>>57003466
It is a bluff you moron

>>57003466
It's a bluff. I was a TA before and we used to do this shit all the time. I always felt sorry for the poor idiots stupid enough to actually come up and confess for a "lesser punishment" when we had no actual proof.

>>57003493
>>57003504
That is what I thought. His exact phrasing was:
"You can go to the testing center site and see your preliminary grades for the exam.

I believe that approximately 16 students have compromised the exam by communicating with each other during the test. I am looking into this.

As soon as I resolve this sorry issue, I will make the grades official."

Seemed like he did not have any concrete evidence and wanted people to reveal themselves.

>>57003493
>>57003504
I'll also add, he is the most aloof and gullible professor I've ever had. He taught Thermo 2 and each test was 15 multiple choice questions. There were only two forms of the tests, and each form had the exact same questions with the exact same answers. He didn't even both switching them up. Very strange guy. Curved our last exam 24 points, got a 13/16 on this one so hoping the nigga curves again.

Half this class has never programmed and matlab is like a foreign language to them so he always is pretty generous with the curve.

>>57003466
> what extent can professors see what is sent between students personal computers on campus wifi?

Depends, HTTP with no TLS? They can probably see messages, along with correlating messages sent based on time stamps. Its even easier if you have some authentication to the WiFi i.e. username/password, tied to a computer with a unique MAC, meaning they know who sent what, along with from where and at what time.

HTTPS? Welp, they can still see DNS queries, and determine where your traffic is going but not the contents of the traffic. So they know what sites you visit, and what requests you make (i.e. sent/receive messages), but not know the contents of the requests. So if they can put two and two together.

TLDR; Depending on logging, 16 people are probably fucked.

>>57003466
>check router logs
Boom. Wow. So hard.

File: chris-hansen.jpg (26KB, 352x707px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 352x707px

>>57003466
i highly doubt students cheating would be his worst concern,especially if he could see whats on a neets laptop like yours

>>57004611
If the campus made students install a CA certificate, all HTTPS traffic can be sniffed.

>>57004873
Thats what I'm saying. Shuddering just thinking of the stuff they would uncover if they decided to sniff around my computer. Can't imagine the looks of disgust

>set up wifi hotspot on phone named something similar to campus wifi
>Only give certain people login credentials

>>57004611
Our wifi does have authentication. I've used campus wifi for some very questionable activities. Usually use a VPN then but still.

The professor is just such an aloof guy, I really doubt he has the capacity or know how to orchestrate this. Also, if he could view the logging, why hasn't he implicated the people involved yet. Or are 16 people flagged from their logging and he's looking into it more?

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-09 at 8.58.09 PM.png (55KB, 1522x248px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1522x248px

Here's the exact email

>>57003466
>16 people have identical answers
>Well obviously he was monitoring us chat on Facebook on the wifis!!

Im done

>>57004996
That's not what he said. He said he believes 16 people "compromised the exam" by communicating with each other. I was wondering if there was any way he could actually verify this.

>>57005010
The answer is yes.

>>57005033
Welp I'm probably fucked. Was iMessaging mid test

>>57005010
While I'm sure it's possible to monitor in real time, and its definitely possible to go back and scrape logs, I'm sure the professor didn't sit there and watch you chat. More like he noticed 16 answers were the same and then came to the conclusion you used some messaging thing.

>>57005130
I'd have to take a look at a pcap to be sure. But if you are sending iMessage messages, during a test it would be easy to detect. Namely, you are authenticated VIA username, as well as likely what hotspot you are connected to, and traffic going to and from iMessage servers. This puts you at a time, place, and verifies your identity. Once again, all dependent on logs.... Do the lecture halls have cameras? That'd also help identify cheating students.

>>57003466
He don't know squat.

Professor doesn't care if children cheat
He appreciates the fact you can actually get shit done unlike goody two shoe cux

>>57005130
>Was iMessaging mid test
WHY

a blah blah blah im such a leech

>>57005193
Because 1) Students are lazy 2) They think they can get away with it 3) Universities are run as a business, and let stupid fucks in that shouldn't be there. Stupid fucks then cannot pass the courses legit and need to cheat.

>>57004958
Should be fine as long as you NEVER log into VPN and hit a school controlled resources, thinking you are anonymous. This would lead to browser fingerprinting and traffic correlation (as they can see ingress/egress traffic). For strictly outbound traffic i.e. torrenting/finding million dollar textbooks, you'd be fine.

>>57005193
>>57005215
I actually had it running and my messages go through there too. It wasn't about the test.

>>57005263
I mean, if you are in a group, and one person sends a message, 15 others will receive the notification right?

If you school logs packet headers, they'd see one outbound transaction, and 15 inbound transactions likely at about the same time... Would be easy to identify still.

>>57005296
I meant my messages from my phone, etc go through my imessage also. It was from one other person who was saving me a spot in my next class. Sent around 9:48, two minutes before class ended. I did not collaborate with anyone on the test, just was wondering if it was even possible for him to look into this matter or if it was a bluff. Not sure where he got the number 16 from.

>>57005318
If you received a message, and 15 other people didn't get the same one, then it is not likely that you were involved. As well, if the message did not appear to come from one of the suspected 16 (based on timestamps), then it is also less likely you'd be implicated.

The administration would never know the contents of the messages, they can only observe the meta data such as timestamps, where you are connecting, and identifying information such as username/password authentication and MAC addresses.

Unofficial /g/ cringe thread.