Researchers identify people through ordinary Wi-Fi routers with 99.5% accuracy — technique works with standard Wi-Fi routers
The team's "BFId" attack works with off-the-shelf hardware.
Security researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in Germany have published a paper demonstrating that unencrypted beamforming data broadcast by Wi-Fi devices during normal operation can be used to identify individuals walking through a room with 99.5% accuracy, regardless of whether the individuals are carrying Wi-Fi devices. The tactic leverages the router's beamforming tech to identify individuals with up to 99.5% accuracy, and it works with existing routers, too.
The system, called BFId, requires no specialized hardware, no access to the target Wi-Fi network, and works even if the person being tracked isn't carrying a wireless device. The team tested the attack on 197 participants, the largest dataset ever used in Wi-Fi-based identification works, and plans to present its findings at the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) in Taipei.
Wi-Fi-based identification isn’t new; prior systems have used channel state information (CSI), a physical-layer measurement of how radio signals degrade between transmitter and receiver, to recognize people by their gait. But CSI extraction requires modified firmware that only works on a handful of network interface cards, most notably the Intel 5300, a NIC released in 2008 that's widely used in research, and fewer than 6% of deployed Wi-Fi devices supported CSI extraction as of 2023, according to the paper.
BFId exploits a different data source: beamforming feedback information (BFI). Introduced in Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac), beamforming allows access points to steer transmissions toward specific clients. To do this, connected devices periodically measure the wireless channel and send compressed feedback back to the router, which is then broadcast unencrypted on the MAC layer, meaning any Wi-Fi adapter set to monitor mode can capture it passively.
A single eavesdropping device can record BFI from every client on a network simultaneously, capturing multiple perspectives of any person in the area. CSI-based attacks, by contrast, only capture one perspective per malicious node.
The researchers found that BFI substantially outperformed CSI in identification accuracy despite being a lossy, lower-resolution derivative of CSI data. On the same 170-person subset, BFI achieved 99.5% accuracy compared to 82.4% for CSI. The paper attributes this to BFI's compression acting as a form of noise filtering, and to higher spatial resolution, with each BFI data point containing 740 features versus 212 for CSI.
The team tested several potential mitigations, such as reducing the frequency of beamforming reports, which had minimal effect on BFI accuracy, even at heavily degraded sample rates. Encrypting BFI transmissions would require changes to the Wi-Fi standard and could break backward compatibility with existing devices.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
"The technology is powerful, but at the same time entails risks to our fundamental rights, especially to privacy," Professor Thorsten Strufe from KASTEL, KIT's cybersecurity institute, said in a press release published on Science Daily.
The researchers noted that IEEE published the 802.11bf amendment in 2025, which formally standardizes Wi-Fi sensing for applications like presence detection and environment monitoring. The team argues the standard lacks adequate privacy protections and is calling for safeguards to be added before Wi-Fi sensing becomes widely deployed.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Luke James is a freelance writer and journalist. Although his background is in legal, he has a personal interest in all things tech, especially hardware and microelectronics, and anything regulatory.
-
Sam Hobbs I think the article is too vague about what the technology is doing. The article seems to imply that the technology recognizes people by physical appearance including how they move. It makes that confusing by stating explicitly that the person does not need a wireless device. If my understanding about physical appearance is correct then the article should have stated that explicitly.Reply -
COBXO3 Reply
It did state that quite clearly. Tech can determine "girth" of a person by level of signal degradation.Sam Hobbs said:I think the article is too vague about what the technology is doing. The article seems to imply that the technology recognizes people by physical appearance including how they move. It makes that confusing by stating explicitly that the person does not need a wireless device. If my understanding about physical appearance is correct then the article should have stated that explicitly. -
PEnns ReplyCOBXO3 said:It did state that quite clearly. Tech can determine "girth" of a person by level of signal degradation.
So, a person with no detectable "girth" i.e, very skinny, will fool the system!! -
usertests Reply
I am detecting your girthy stomach through IP.PEnns said:So, a person with no detectable "girth" i.e, very skinny, will fool the system!! -
Sam Hobbs Reply
No what the article says is not clear. Instead it complicates things by mentioning wireless devices. If it was clear about using physical characteristics of bodies then saying that wireless devices are not needed would be unnecessary.COBXO3 said:It did state that quite clearly. Tech can determine "girth" of a person by level of signal degradation. -
COBXO3 Reply
No, it detects and differentiates people based on different girths. It can tell when a skinny person entered a room or a big one.PEnns said:So, a person with no detectable "girth" i.e, very skinny, will fool the system!! -
Darkbreeze This is lame, and is NOT what the headline would suggest. Being able to tell there is a "person" and approximately how large or small they are, is abso(Insert here)luty not the same as "identify a person through their wifi". Headline suggests "identification" of a person, not "determination that a person is present and, some details". Just, sorry, IMO it's just more clickbait. Now, if they could ACTUALLY "identify" a person, that would be alarming.Reply -
Alastor01 Of course it's not possible to actually identify a person. And it's not like results can not be similar to other objects interfering with radio waves. It's no different from other radio waves either. Why do headlines have to be so overdramatic?Reply -
USAFRet Reply
Exactly.Darkbreeze said:This is lame, and is NOT what the headline would suggest. Being able to tell there is a "person" and approximately how large or small they are, is abso(Insert here)luty not the same as "identify a person through their wifi". Headline suggests "identification" of a person, not "determination that a person is present and, some details". Just, sorry, IMO it's just more clickbait. Now, if they could ACTUALLY "identify" a person, that would be alarming.
Person vs Coatrack is one thing.
Person A vs Person B is totally different.