4 ms·
PoisonTap (2016)
- emmelaich 7y ago[2016] Still cool though!
- dang 7y agoAdded. Thanks!
- stedaniels 7y agoSeems to be suffering... https://web.archive.org/web/20190927060041/https://samy.pl/poisontap/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190927060041/https://samy.pl/p...
- ge0rg 7y agoPrevious coverage: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12971503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12971503 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12966673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12966673 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12974121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12974121 Potential counter measure: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13118227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13118227
- regecks 7y agousgbuard is another countermeasure if you have a Linux workstation.
- mirimir 7y agoHuh. Maybe I'm naive, but wouldn't iptables block it? Default rules on the host box that this VM runs on include: -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -d 1.2.3.4/32 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -o tun0 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -j DROP With 1.2.3.4 being the VPN server that I'm using. And VirtualBox doesn't have USB enabled. And if I weren't using a VPN, it'd be: -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -j DROP So nothing would use a new interface, no matter what routing it promised. And even in Windows, decent VPN client apps use rules that are basically analogous to those.
- xnzakg 7y agoWouldn't simply disabling automatic connection to wired networks work against this? Weird not to see that mentioned in the potential countermeasures.