[32599] in bugtraq
Re: Unhackable network really unhackable?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Thu Nov 27 17:58:58 2003
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:45:24 +0100
From: Niels Bakker <niels-bugtraq@bakker.net>
To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Message-ID: <20031127214523.GY59713@snowcrash.tpb.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Niels Bakker <niels-bugtraq@bakker.net>,
bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20031126233414.8656.qmail@sf-www3-symnsj.securityfocus.com>
* bugjules@anarkey.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@bakker.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.]
