Never underestimate the ability of people to delude themselves about the
effectiveness of their security practices. ;->
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron J. Moreau-Cook (Cisco Account) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 8:19 PM
To: Chuck Larrieu; Craig Columbus; Natasha; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: wrong subnet
You know what is crazy about this philosophy...
As a user, I know what the gateway is by looking into my TCP/IP settings.
Oh well.. It's not THAT bad of a idea to change the router to a odd number,
but I think the ROI is quite low.
Plus, as we move forward with CIDR, a router could be at .65, .129, etc...
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Chuck Larrieu
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 6:54 PM
To: Craig Columbus; Natasha; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: wrong subnet
One place I worked placed all their routers at the dot 100 address. Printers
were all dot 1 through 10. All other clients were DHCP. Kind of a pain to
set up DHCP scopes initially, I suppose.
Their security folks did this deliberately, the idea being that since
everyone numbers their routers as either dot 1 or dot 254, that's where
hackers ( internal, in this case, because it was al private addressing )
would be looking. It would be easier for the snoop software to discover
someone trying to telnet to a couple hundred addresses than it would be to
discover someone attempting to break into just a couple of addresses.
Well, that's what they said, anyway.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Craig Columbus
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 6:05 PM
To: Natasha; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: wrong subnet
Hmm...depends on your meaning of correct. The router is the last host IP
in the network (10.1.244.0-10.1.245.255). While most people put the router
as the first IP (in this case 10.1.244.1), there's technically nothing to
prevent someone from making it the last host...or the middle host....or any
host in between. Technically feasible? Yep. Poor choice? In my opinion,
yes.
Craig
At 08:18 PM 1/15/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>It may be legal but still not correct.
>
>One thing that seems a bit odd though, the gateway is generally a
>smaller number then the node.
>I've never seen it larger but hey I've seen stranger things.
>Natasha
>just a CCNA lol
>
>Eric Fairfield wrote:
> >
> > Looks legal to me.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Fairfield
> > CCIE #6413
> >
> > ""Dennis Ighomereho"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > hello everyone,
> > > someone has just given me an IP address to use which i think the
> subnet is
> > > wrong or know is wrong.can someone just confirm this.
> > >
> > > Ip address:10.1.245.253
> > > mask: 255.255.254.0
> > > gateway 10.1.245.254
>
>Natasha Flazynski
>http://www.ciscobot.com
>My Cisco information site.
>http://www.botbuilders.com
>Artificial Intelligence and Linux development
>------------------------------------------------
>A bus station is where a bus stops.
>A train station is where a train stops.
>On my desk, I have a work station...
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
