8 ms·
'NSA addition to ifconfig'
- brynet 10y agoThat is just some diff someone sent to a mailing list, one real nifty feature of OpenBSD's ifconfig(8) is 'lladdr random', which will randomly assign a new MAC address to an interface. Apparently well received by developers in airport lounges.
- egwynn 10y agoAccording to the diff (and its accompanying message) this is what it supplements. It allows one to specify “nsa” instead of “random”, and it’ll fill in the first three bytes (with 00:20:91) for you.
- jschwartzi 10y agoThat's the NSA's OUID, so anyone who looks your mac address up will think it originated with them.
- brynet 10y agoBTW -- it's also really easy to configure wireless on OpenBSD compared to other systems: # ifconfig iwm0 scan ... # ifconfig iwm0 nwid "AP" [wpakey pass] [nwkey pass] up # dhclient iwm0 http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-current/man8/ifconfig.8#IEEE_802.11_(WIRELESS_DEVICES) http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-current/man8/ifconfig.8#IEEE_... http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-current/man5/hostname.if.5 http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-current/man5/hostname.if.5
- zxcvcxz 10y agoThat's if wireless works at all.
- Hello71 10y agosomewhat difficult to find, but: echo "mac_addr=1" >> /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf documented at https://w1.fi/cgit/hostap/plain/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf https://w1.fi/cgit/hostap/plain/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplican... line 405.
- atmosx 10y agoHm, here: $ sudo ifconfig en0 ether `openssl rand -hex 6 | sed 's/\(..\)/\1:/g; s/.$//'`
- trothamel 10y agoThe joke being, of course, that 00:20:91 is the OUI (3-byte MAC address prefix) assigned to the NSA.
- int0x80 10y agoNSA has a MAC address prefix??
- Sanddancer 10y agoThe NSA is one of the largest hardware purchasers and designers on the planet, and has a ton of custom hardware, etc. It only makes sense or them to have their own oid.
- jhayward 10y agoThey used to be. I dunno if they are in the age of Google, Facebook, and Amazon datacenters. It seems like I recall in the past that NSA would rather do business under some Department of Agriculture pseudonym, or as some dummy corporation. I remember talking to one of the engineers from DEC who worked on the original ethernet spec. He said they had a visit from some very smart guys carrying dept. of Agriculture business cards, to talk about what the spec would look like.
- Keyframe 10y agoI don't know. Bumblehive seems rather big and modern compared to the usual suspect's datacenters: https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/ https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/ You can find numerous articles about that particular one around. One can only wonder what kind of technological wonders are in there. That's the public one too. Now, imagine the rest.
- gtirloni 10y agohttp://standards-oui.ieee.org/oui.txt http://standards-oui.ieee.org/oui.txt 00-20-91 (hex) J125, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 002091 (base 16) J125, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 9800 SAVAGE ROAD FT. MEADE MD 20755-6000 US
- nickpsecurity 10y agoThat's funny. I like screwing with them, too. My last, temporary keypair was labeled "keith.alexander@nsa.gov." Smart people got a nice laugh out of it. Then, there was another category of persons that had sudden concerns about my true identity. They also had encrypted, authenticated mockery in their inbox upon voicing them.
- bitwize 10y agoSmart people got a nice laugh out of it. And smart FBI agents think it's very funny identity fraud.
- hbosch 10y agoIn no way could a phony e-mail address (or any other string, for that matter) tied to a disposable keypair be construed as identity fraud. That would be like claiming "identity fraud" for telling the barista at Starbucks your name is Abraham Lincoln.
- duaneb 10y agoThe disposable key pair IS an identity in this case. I dunno about the legal end, but it's hardly the same as giving a name to a barista.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoIt's the same. You claimed you had a specific identity. From there, one might look at the specific identity, the evidence behind the claim, and any specific laws. Far as government employees, just claiming to be one might be enough to get you charged. I don't know the case law on it, though, so there could be nuances that protects you in some situations. Note: An example would be doing it in a fictional movie. I'm sure that's safe as the claim is clearly BS.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- poizan42 10y agoCompletely offtopic, but am I the only one who don't like the usage of ! in the strcmp checks? To me conceptually !cond is checking for falsity, but the return value from strcmp is not logically a boolean
- bpineau 10y agoIt's just a shorthand for '== 0' (since !0 is true, and !<non-zero> is false). strcmp(3) returns 0 when the two strings are identical. So "if (!strcmp(a, b))" means "if the strings a and b are the same.
- anyfoo 10y agoHe understands that, but he does not like to use this shorthand for strcmp, because it conveys a conflicting meaning. I'm much the same, and I prefer explicitly writing "== 0" in those situations.
- protomyth 10y agoI'm not sure I see it as conflicting meaning versus how C treats boolean expressions. Logical, I want to know if the strings are not equal and that uses boolean syntax to tell me that as opposed to comparing to zero which doesn't convey the meaning of the statement as fast.
- lfowles 10y agoIt's an artifact of implementation. In some zany world, strcmp could return EQUAL_ENUM. What you are ideally expressing is that you want to know that both strings are equal as determined by strcmp, not that the strcmp return value is nonzero. Now it just so happens that EQUAL_ENUM=0 in this world, so a side effect is that !strcmp(...) will still work. And we also have plenty of examples using this shorthand that it doesn't seem unnatural to a lot of devs. (Doesn't make it any less boots-on-head strange... when in Rome, do as the Romans do...)
- 10y ago