Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss
From: "Vivek P" <iamherevivek () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:20:33 +0530
Het AJ, i really appreciate your technology knowledge, here i have just shared a case so that i debate with the TECHNOLOGY think tanks & other experts who are at security basics mailing list. It may or may not reflect my technology skills. I am trying to focus research to an area - "Hide your actual IP", anonymise your ip! trying to improvise somethings, trying to prove that it is possible. Cos i believe that there is scope of implementing it! Thanks for the writeup & comments to all at security basics & security focus ------------------------------------------- Vivek P Nair Vice President Technology Appin Group Of Companies Appin Security Group Module III TBIU IIT DELHI Hauz Khaus New delhi India www.appinlabs.com vivek.p () appinlabs com +919910924675 We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals. Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all! On 9/28/07, AJ <heuristix () gmail com> wrote:
You can't spoof packets and still get return packets back reliably without essentially getting control of another box, spoofing it's IP and routing replies back from that box to yours. Then again, why would you not use the secondary box itself unless maybe there were some features associated with your primary box (such as a high bandwidth connection) that you didn't have available on the secondary box. And there are very few non-destructive applications of doing this. Interesting to note that you are a Vice President of Technology at a "security consulting" company. Speaks volumes about the quality of "security consulting" these days. Le sigh. On 28 Sep 2007 01:07:47 -0000, cstubbs () gmail com <cstubbs () gmail com> wrote:So you're interested in concealing both Layer 2 and Layer 3 ID of the source traffic within a private network ? ie. somewhere that TOR cannot be used ? You should consider broadcast and multicast addresses (both layer 2 and 3 again) as sources, although depending on the network and the target device you may or may not ensure 0% packet loss.
--
Current thread:
- Re: Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Vivek P (Oct 17)