bugtraq - Re: Unhackable network really unhackable?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20031127214523.GY59713@snowcrash.tpb.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:45:24 +0100
From: Niels Bakker <niels-bugtraq@...ker.net>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Unhackable network really unhackable?

* bugjules@...rkey.org (Julian Wynne) [Thu 27 Nov 2003, 19:14 CET]:
[..]
> Furthermore we would like to point out that InvisiLAN technology has no
> relation whatsoever with DHCP, for example InvisiLAN changes randomly
> not just the IP address but also the MAC address and the port numbers.

That rules out long-living TCP sessions.  Kind of defeats the purpose of
having a machine connected, doesn't it?

	-- Niels.

-- 
[Please reply to niels=bugtraq@...ker.net instead.  I'm sick and tired
 of all the morons who misconfigure their mailers and send autoreplies
 back after anybody contributes something to a mailing list.]