Re: Hardware Address Question
From: Moe Trin (ibuprofin_at_painkiller.example.tld)
Date: 01/17/05
- Previous message: kony: "Re: hacking Synology DS-101"
- In reply to: Mark Anderson: "Re: Hardware Address Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:26:24 -0600
In article <MPG.1c53a06facf0781a989857@chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
Mark Anderson wrote:
>In article ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld says...
>>> According to the router it's 52-54-00-DB-93-0D.
>> Something is fscked in your router.
>I don't know if it's the router or the Linux box but when I turned off
>UPnP the real HW address now shows up on the DHCP page. It could be a
>problem with the router or more likely, the way Linux deals with these
>consumer grade routers which may not follow certain standards correctly.
>I don't know. It seems to work now.
Maybe the way you are reading the data. The '52-54-00-DB-93-0D' makes
no sense as a MAC address (there is no address issued between 11:00:AA
and 80:00:10), or ASCII (only values of 0-0x7F are defined) or whatever.
>One of the clients on my network, a person who, for some reason, hasn't
>seen a link he can't say no to, gets his computer clogged up with
>adware/malware continuously.
And the reason this person hasn't received a ten liter 99% sulphuric acid
enema at 7 atmospheres (2.4 US Gallon at 100 psi if you are stateside) is
what precisely?
>When looking through the firewall port forwarding entries in the router I
>noticed some stuff registered to his IP address and then realized the
>router defaulted with UPnP turned on. Turning that off solved the HW
>address anomaly as well as temporarily blocking some malware from getting
>through.
Never did like plug and pray - universal or otherwise.
>I just find it easier to administer having every client on the network do
>DHCP. Then I don't have to program the DNS server IPs into the clients.
The original purpose of dynamic addressing (first BOOTP as RFC0951, later
as DHCP with several RFCs - the latest being 2132 - updated by RFC3442 and
RFC3942) was where there were many computers that were not operating all the
time, and had to share a limited number of addresses. With RFC1597 (replaced
by RFC1918) there are over 17 million addresses available. Consequently,
DHCP was adopted by microsoft to ease the configuration burden on hosts (at
the cost of increased complexity on servers and less security). The only
time I see a use for it is where you have systems that are roaming between
two or more networks (we use boot profiles to select which network setup
will be used), or where the network administrator has no control over what
hosts may connect, and doesn't need to be concerned about it. I will not
go there. We statically configure all of our systems. Our users don't
have root (or administrator if you are talking windoze) on any computer,
so we are spared some of this grief.
>Granted, when encountering this problem I should have made it static and
>be done with it but this quirky behaviour bothered me.
Sniffing the network, and watching the DHCP dialog might help answer
things. I really doubt that the hardware addresses on the wire are being
changed - some cards won't permit this.
>That didn't work. These kind of problems really frustrate me. I'm going
>to the pub! :-)
Hey, _I'll_ drink to that!!!
Old guy
- Previous message: kony: "Re: hacking Synology DS-101"
- In reply to: Mark Anderson: "Re: Hardware Address Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
