From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antony Stone Subject: Re: (no subject) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:00:46 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.samba.org Message-ID: <20020628200048.TETZ19225.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@there> References: <000901c1000a$8aaa63e0$4d2848c7@shaggy> <20020628194809.RPKD4626.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@there> <20020628220220.G4136@oknodo.bof.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20020628220220.G4136@oknodo.bof.de> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.samba.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: netfilter On Friday 28 June 2002 9:02 pm, Patrick Schaaf wrote: > Hi Antony, > > > Hmmm. I thought a bridge was supposed to have the same address on both > > interfaces. Still, I've never set one up myself, so maybe there's more > > than one way to do it. > > A bridge, by its nature, has no IP addresses at all. The original poster > is asking about a pure router. Ugh. In that case I recommend using IPs from two *different* network ranges on the two sides of the machine ! > And you are right on spot with your observation about the ability of a > malicious user to fake her MAC address at will. And one nice thing about > most wireless networks is that I can just listen to the air for some time > to learn what MAC/IP combination it is that I should fake after it became > silent... Indeed. There may be anti-sniffing measures available for wired networks, but I know of nothing which can detect / defeat sniffing on wireless. Antony.