>Do they make steel braided ethernet cables? :P
I'd bet the DoD has a milspec for it! :-)
Pete
--
http://www.elbnet.com
ELB Internet Services, Inc.
Web Design, Computer Consulting, Internet Hosting
>Do they make steel braided ethernet cables? :P
I'd bet the DoD has a milspec for it! :-)
Pete
--
http://www.elbnet.com
ELB Internet Services, Inc.
Web Design, Computer Consulting, Internet Hosting
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
One possible way to defeat this would be to use those metal "security
chains" that they use to keep people from carrying off computers. Use a
very short one, about 2" long. Affix one side to the computer case, and the
other to the ethernet cable. Now, even this can be overcome if the crafty
hack
One possible way to defeat this would be to use those metal "security
chains" that they use to keep people from carrying off computers. Use a
very short one, about 2" long. Affix one side to the computer case, and the
other to the ethernet cable. Now, even this can be overcome if the crafty
hac
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Holger
Lubitz
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:08 AM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: users bypassing shaper limitation
Jeff S Wheeler proclaimed:
> cards around. If I do not, they will grumble and/or disable the ethernet
> ports that unknown MAC addresses
Jeff S Wheeler proclaimed:
> cards around. If I do not, they will grumble and/or disable the ethernet
> ports that unknown MAC addresses appear on. In some areas (e.g. student
> labs) they do that automatically so kids can't just bring their laptop in
> and hop on napster at 100Mbit.
Easy. Disco
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Holger
Lubitz
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: users bypassing shaper limitation
Jeff S Wheeler proclaimed:
> cards around. If I do not, they will grumble and/or disable the ethernet
> ports that unknown MAC addresses app
Jeff S Wheeler proclaimed:
> cards around. If I do not, they will grumble and/or disable the ethernet
> ports that unknown MAC addresses appear on. In some areas (e.g. student
> labs) they do that automatically so kids can't just bring their laptop in
> and hop on napster at 100Mbit.
Easy. Disc
bring their laptop in
and hop on napster at 100Mbit.
- jsw
-Original Message-
From: Gerard MacNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 5:39 AM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: users bypassing shaper limitation
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 15:59:34 -0400, "Jef
bring their laptop in
and hop on napster at 100Mbit.
- jsw
-Original Message-
From: Gerard MacNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 5:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: users bypassing shaper limitation
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 15:59:34 -0400, "Jeff S Wheeler&qu
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 15:59:34 -0400, "Jeff S Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been reading this thread and noticed no one has suggested the MAC
> address filtering capabilities in Linux 2.4's new ip tables subsystem.
There is no requirement to run 2.4.x and iptables, nor iproute2, to a
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 15:59:34 -0400, "Jeff S Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been reading this thread and noticed no one has suggested the MAC
> address filtering capabilities in Linux 2.4's new ip tables subsystem.
There is no requirement to run 2.4.x and iptables, nor iproute2, to
> I have been reading this thread and noticed no one has suggested the MAC
> address filtering capabilities in Linux 2.4's new ip tables subsystem. I
> hear there are serious problems with using 2.4.x series kernels as a
> firewall, though; what are they?
I believe the 2.4.x iptable issues were
erard MacNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:46 AM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: users bypassing shaper limitation
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 14:30:33 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sami Haahtinen)
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgens
> I have been reading this thread and noticed no one has suggested the MAC
> address filtering capabilities in Linux 2.4's new ip tables subsystem. I
> hear there are serious problems with using 2.4.x series kernels as a
> firewall, though; what are they?
I believe the 2.4.x iptable issues wer
erard MacNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: users bypassing shaper limitation
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 14:30:33 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sami Haahtinen)
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgens
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 14:30:33 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sami Haahtinen) wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > Besides, the bad guys may choose not to use DHCP - this is
> > entirely up to the config on the client machines.
>
> but if you make dynamic firewa
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 06:23:19AM +0200, Maurice Verhagen wrote:
> > This first that pops into mind is use DHCP and give a IP-lease to the
> > machines in your local network based on the NIC's Mac address. I
> > guess the only wa
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 14:30:33 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sami Haahtinen) wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > Besides, the bad guys may choose not to use DHCP - this is
> > entirely up to the config on the client machines.
>
> but if you make dynamic firew
My first choice is also what the other Chris said, use a large LART on the
offending [computer|user]. You can use smart switches to base the ip on
pre-authorized MAC addresses. That way you are effectivly shaping based on
MAC address. But in true hacker form, even that can be overcome. Some
(mo
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 06:23:19AM +0200, Maurice Verhagen wrote:
> > This first that pops into mind is use DHCP and give a IP-lease to the
> > machines in your local network based on the NIC's Mac address. I
> > guess the only w
My first choice is also what the other Chris said, use a large LART on the
offending [computer|user]. You can use smart switches to base the ip on
pre-authorized MAC addresses. That way you are effectivly shaping based on
MAC address. But in true hacker form, even that can be overcome. Some
(m
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 06:23:19AM +0200, Maurice Verhagen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, anon wrote:
>
> > my problem is that some local users are changing their own local ip numbers
> > (like, 192.168.1.40 to 192.168.1.50) then bypassing the Traffic shaper
> > bandwidth limitation. (that was s
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 06:23:19AM +0200, Maurice Verhagen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, anon wrote:
>
> > my problem is that some local users are changing their own local ip numbers
> > (like, 192.168.1.40 to 192.168.1.50) then bypassing the Traffic shaper
> > bandwidth limitation. (that was
If the nodes in question are plugged into a switch with managment
capabilities then you could set the security of the port to only allow
legal mac/ip address's. It depends on the switch.
You could go to the person and whack them on the head. Which might be the
easiest.
Chris
At 06:12 PM 6/29
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, anon wrote:
> my problem is that some local users are changing their own local ip numbers
> (like, 192.168.1.40 to 192.168.1.50) then bypassing the Traffic shaper
> bandwidth limitation. (that was set on 192.168.1.40)
>
> anyone know how can i prevent this ?
This first that
If the nodes in question are plugged into a switch with managment
capabilities then you could set the security of the port to only allow
legal mac/ip address's. It depends on the switch.
You could go to the person and whack them on the head. Which might be the
easiest.
Chris
At 06:12 PM 6
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, anon wrote:
> my problem is that some local users are changing their own local ip numbers
> (like, 192.168.1.40 to 192.168.1.50) then bypassing the Traffic shaper
> bandwidth limitation. (that was set on 192.168.1.40)
>
> anyone know how can i prevent this ?
This first tha
hello all, this is my first post.
my problem is that some local users are changing their own local ip numbers
(like, 192.168.1.40 to 192.168.1.50) then bypassing the Traffic shaper
bandwidth limitation. (that was set on 192.168.1.40)
anyone know how can i prevent this ?
thanks in advance
hello all, this is my first post.
my problem is that some local users are changing their own local ip numbers
(like, 192.168.1.40 to 192.168.1.50) then bypassing the Traffic shaper
bandwidth limitation. (that was set on 192.168.1.40)
anyone know how can i prevent this ?
thanks in advance
--
30 matches
Mail list logo
