| 1 |
Lord Sauron wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 7/5/06, Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Lord Sauron wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> How should *THAT* help? In 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of |
| 6 |
>> the times, the attacker won't be on the same subnet, and thus the |
| 7 |
>> MAC isn't available. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Couldn't hurt. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well, as it doesn't buy you anything, I'd disagree: It would hurt. |
| 12 |
It would make the setup more complex with no gain. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> You never know what you'll find when you tear apart |
| 15 |
> some networking packets. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You won't find the MAC adress of the attacker. You'll find the MAC |
| 18 |
adress of your upstream router/switch. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
>> You can try to block me, my MAC will be either 00:12:17:D4:21:D4 |
| 21 |
>> or 00:12:17:D4:21:D2. Just tell me, where you blocked me using |
| 22 |
>> my MAC and I'll see if I can still access. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I'll try it someday when I can figure out enough about linux |
| 25 |
> networking to do something like that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Don't spend too much time, as it's a waste. You will NOT see |
| 28 |
my MAC address. Not because I try to disguise it, but because |
| 29 |
it won't be available to you. That's simply how TCP/IP works. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Alexander Skwar |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and |
| 34 |
robbers there will be. |
| 35 |
-- Lao Tsu |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives