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
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
vivek.p () appinlabs com
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
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.
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.
- Re: Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Vivek P (Oct 17)