On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:49:52PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Infect one host, get the rest for free via local link(s).
Then again, you have to succesfully infect/control one host
before being able to do that and who says that there is another
host that is possible for infection in the same
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 08:24 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
I imagine a smart scanner could make some good guesses based on
knowledge of what parts of the MAC address space have been assigned and
are in common use, and maybe other patterns of how parts of the ipv6
addresses are used. Still, good
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 06:15:52PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
Well I don't completely agree. For what I have seen around soon or later
even your washing machine will have an IPv6 address. It is true that the
amount of ip to probe are higher but also the amount of hosts will
increase.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
Sure, but it's not like the next IIS worm is going to work on your 3G
cell phone. ( Oh, please, cell phone vendors, don't start embedding IIS
in your phones! )
hell no! I will never buy such a device than :P
Yes there will be a lot of IPv6 devices,
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
SNIP
My question, though, is this: Would it not be possible to
find out all
the local nodes by pinging ff02::1? That'd make it a lot
easier to find
likely targets without having to make random guesses.
afaik
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:34:27PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
Yes there will be a lot of IPv6 devices, but they'll
be really really diverse, both in terms of software and hardware.
partially true. even if they differ in hardware and software would you
still like your washing
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 12:15 PM, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
Well I don't completely agree. For what I have seen around soon or
later
even your washing machine will have an IPv6 address. It is true that
the
amount of ip to probe are higher but also the amount of hosts will
increase.
Ya know... a misconfigured firewall can be just as insecure as having all
machines on a global network.
The only reason people do it is to a) Do as M$ does and just make the
inner-workings of a system a little less known and b) conceptually it
makes a difference. When you can put a cloud around
Let me address this from my employment perspective, rather than
merely as a Debian package maintainer, as an IPv6 network administrator.
The fact that companies use NAT with RFC1918 addresses
internally is by no means a full-proof method of security. It's more
security through
9 matches
Mail list logo
