Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Cain and Abel
From: Piw (piw_at_e-liberty.pl)
Date: 02/07/05
- Previous message: Simon Roberts: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] state of homograph attacks"
- In reply to: Nick Vasiliev: "[Full-Disclosure] Re: Cain and Abel"
- Next in thread: Dominik Birk: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Cain and Abel"
- Reply: Dominik Birk: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Cain and Abel"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:51:50 +0100 To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Nick Vasiliev wrote:
> I have tried to set up static arp mappings on my system however the
> new ones overwrote the old ones. Also I am not sure but does it also
> screw with switch's arp tables or just the client ones? Any feedback
> would be nice
Yes, such attack re-map port<->mac pair in "plain" switches.
Static arp entries are _static_ (unchangable) for Linux.
For Windows, Windows XP is first MS system that treat static as real
static - in previous versions "static" means that is times-out not so
often (but could be changed)
For other OSes? dunno.
Piw
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: Simon Roberts: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] state of homograph attacks"
- In reply to: Nick Vasiliev: "[Full-Disclosure] Re: Cain and Abel"
- Next in thread: Dominik Birk: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Cain and Abel"
- Reply: Dominik Birk: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Cain and Abel"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|