From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francisco Pereira Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:57:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] clone MAC address Message-Id: <419ABE09.4040000@lojan.com> List-Id: References: <7539d99f04111518002045dad8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7539d99f04111518002045dad8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Frank Gruellich wrote: > * Nicolas Patik 16. Nov 04: > >>No, I'm not talking about natting ... I'm talking about hidding my >>computers from my ISP. > > Tell me, what's the difference. Can you give some technical description > for this 'hiding' you are talking about? > >>.. or .... are you telling me that the problem with my linux box is >>about bad firewall rules? > > No. 'Firewall rules' are a matter of layer 3, MACs and their so called > cloning belong to layer 2. > >>Right now with my linux box doing NAT they can find that I have others >>computers connected. > > Contradicting to Chris they can. But trust me, they won't. Finding > hosts behind a NAT router is very difficult and involves the collection > of huge amounts of traffic.[1] After all, it will not work for any OSs. It's no so dificult, at least in some cases. p0f (passive OS fingerprint) uses a technique (that has some limitations) to detect masqueraded hosts, it have to sniff all the traffic but not collect it. http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/p0f.shtml Regards, Francisco. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/