Hi Dan,
>> I am in favor of address randomization even while it
>> has
>> limited
>> affect, but at least for background scanning it is
>> useful.
>> However
>> doing this via RTNL is causing a weird layer
>> violation and
>>
On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 09:42 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > > > > > > > > I am in favor of address randomization even while it
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > limited
> > > > > > > > > affect, but at least for background scanning it is
> > > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > > >
Hi Thomas,
I am in favor of address randomization even while it has
limited
affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful.
However
doing this via RTNL is causing a weird layer violation and
all
sorts
of potential r
Hi Thomas,
>>> For NM, at each moment not all its connection profiles are
>>> candidate
>>> for connecting automatically. The list of which profiles can be
>>> autoactivated depends on NM internal state, for example
>>> - is the profile even configured to allow autoactivation?
>>> - is the user
Hi Thomas,
>>> I am in favor of address randomization even while it has
>>> limited
>>> affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful.
>>> However
>>> doing this via RTNL is causing a weird layer violation and
>>> all
>>> sorts
>>> of potential races and
Hi Andrew,
>> For NM, at each moment not all its connection profiles are candidate
>> for connecting automatically. The list of which profiles can be
>> autoactivated depends on NM internal state, for example
>> - is the profile even configured to allow autoactivation?
>> - is the user owning th
Hi Thomas,
I am in favor of address randomization even while it has limited
affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful.
However
doing this via RTNL is causing a weird layer violation and all
sorts
of potential races and issues. This needs to be done wit
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, 2018-01-06 at 01:23 +0100, Andrew Zaborowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5 January 2018 at 14:58, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > For NM, at each moment not all its connection profiles are
> > candidate
> > for connecting automatically. The list of which profiles can be
> > autoactivated de
On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 22:04 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> > > > > > I am in favor of address randomization even while it has
> > > > > > limited
> > > > > > affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful.
> > > > > > However
> > > > > > doing this via RTNL is causing a wei
On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 20:22 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > > I am in favor of address randomization even while it has limited
> > > affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful.
> > > However
> > > doing this via RTNL is causing a weird layer violation and all
> > >
Hi,
On 5 January 2018 at 14:58, Thomas Haller wrote:
> For NM, at each moment not all its connection profiles are candidate
> for connecting automatically. The list of which profiles can be
> autoactivated depends on NM internal state, for example
> - is the profile even configured to allow aut
Hi Dan,
> I am in favor of address randomization even while it has
> limited
> affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful.
> However
> doing this via RTNL is causing a weird layer violation and all
> sorts
> of potential races and issues. This needs to be
On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 14:58 +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 20:22 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > > > I am in favor of address randomization even while it has
> > > > limited
> > > > affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful.
> > > > However
On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 20:22 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > > I am in favor of address randomization even while it has limited
> > > affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful.
> > > However
> > > doing this via RTNL is causing a weird layer violation and all
> > >
Hi Thomas,
>> I am in favor of address randomization even while it has limited
>> affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful. However
>> doing this via RTNL is causing a weird layer violation and all sorts
>> of potential races and issues. This needs to be done with full
>> awarenes
On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 22:38 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>
> I am in favor of address randomization even while it has limited
> affect, but at least for background scanning it is useful. However
> doing this via RTNL is causing a weird layer violation and all sorts
> of potential races and issues
Hi Andrew,
>>> I think a valueable feature with NetworkManager + Wi-Fi +
>>> wpa_supplicant is that MAC address options.
>>>
>>> I tried to explain how that works here:
>>> https://blogs.gnome.org/thaller/2016/08/26/mac-address-spoofing-in-networkmanager-1-4-0/
>>> and some ideas here:
>>> https:
Hi,
On 3 January 2018 at 20:58, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>> I think a valueable feature with NetworkManager + Wi-Fi +
>> wpa_supplicant is that MAC address options.
>>
>> I tried to explain how that works here:
>>
>> https://blogs.gnome.org/thaller/2016/08/26/mac-address-spoofing-in-networkmanage
Hi Thomas,
> I think a valueable feature with NetworkManager + Wi-Fi +
> wpa_supplicant is that MAC address options.
>
> I tried to explain how that works here:
>
> https://blogs.gnome.org/thaller/2016/08/26/mac-address-spoofing-in-networkmanager-1-4-0/
> and some ideas here:
>
> https://cgi
Hi Andrew,
I think a valueable feature with NetworkManager + Wi-Fi +
wpa_supplicant is that MAC address options.
I tried to explain how that works here:
https://blogs.gnome.org/thaller/2016/08/26/mac-address-spoofing-in-networkmanager-1-4-0/
and some ideas here:
https://cgit.freedesktop.o
20 matches
Mail list logo
