Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Search - "randomization"
-
I am starting to suspect that Agile means: "Tell the devs to do whatever you want on any given day, depending on how you feel on that particular day" to some people.6
-
Whoever it was that thought that MAC address spoofing/randomization for "muh network security" was a good idea, I'm gonna violently fucking murder them. It doesn't solve jack shit for security, doesn't magically make your network device "anonymous" or whatever and it never fails to confuse my DHCP servers that use those fucking things. Whoever it was, hang yourself or I'll fucking do it for you. Filthy incompetent motherfucker!!13
-
"There's more to it"
This is something that has been bugging me for a long time now, so <rant>.
Yesterday in one of my chats in Telegram I had a question from someone wanting to make their laptop completely bulletproof privacy respecting, yada yada.. down to the MAC address being randomized. Now I am a networking guy.. or at least I like to think I am.
So I told him, routers must block any MAC addresses from leaking out. So the MAC address is only relevant inside of the network you're in. IPv6 changes this and there is network discovery involved with fandroids and cryphones where WiFi remains turned on as you leave the house (price of convenience amirite?) - but I'll get back to that later.
Now for a laptop MAC address randomization isn't exactly relevant yet I'd say.. at least in something other than Windows where your privacy is right out the window anyway. MAC randomization while Nadella does the whole assfuck, sign me up! /s
So let's assume Linux. No MAC randomization, not necessary, privacy respecting nonetheless. MAC addresses do not leak outside of the network in traditional IPv4 networking. So what would you be worried about inside the network? A hacker inside Starbucks? This is the question I asked him, and argued that if you don't trust the network (and with a public hotspot I personally don't) you shouldn't connect to it in the first place. And since I recall MAC randomization being discussed on the ISC's dhcp-users mailing list a few months ago (http://isc-dhcp-users.2343191.n4.nabble.com/...), I linked that in as well. These are the hardcore networking guys, on the forum of one of the granddaddies of the internet. They make BIND which pretty much everyone uses. It's the de facto standard DNS server out there.
The reply to all of this was simply to the "don't connect to it if you don't trust it" - I guess that's all the privacy nut could argue with. And here we get to the topic of this rant. The almighty rebuttal "there's more to it than that!1! HTTPS doesn't require trust anymore!1!"
... An encrypted connection to a website meaning that you could connect to just about any hostile network. Are you fucking retarded? Ever heard of SSL stripping? Yeah HSTS solves that but only a handful of websites use it and it doesn't scale up properly, since it's pretty much a hardcoded list in web browsers. And you know what? Yes "there's more to it"! There's more to networking than just web browsing. There's 65 THOUSAND ports available on both TCP and UDP, and there you go narrow your understanding of networking to just 2 of them - 80 and 443. Yes there's a lot more to it. But not exactly the kind of thing you're arguing about.
Enjoy your cheap-ass Xiaomeme phone where the "phone" part means phoning home to China, and raging about the Google apps on there. Then try to solve problems that aren't actually problems and pretty vital network components, just because it's an identifier.
</rant>
P.S. I do care a lot about privacy. My web and mail servers for example do not know where my visitors are coming from. All they see is some reverse proxies that they think is the whole internet. So yes I care about my own and others' privacy. But you know.. I'm old-fashioned. I like to solve problems with actual solutions.11 -
Context: I (among other things) manage some servers for my students' club so I have first-hand information about anything network or server-related that happens. We basically run a big enterprise network and we allow devices to connect if a person has paid their membership and the device's MAC address (be it wireless or ethernet) is recognized by our switches/aruba controllers.
Story: So today a first complaint about "the wifi not working" came in because of Android 10 and its MAC randomization. We deal with MAC randomization on Windows laptops and PCs but I think it is disabled by default so we almost never get this type of complaint.
It took one of the other guys probably 5 minutes to figure out how to disable it... only to discover it is a per-network setting.
The actual question: If there are any network administrators here on devRant - how do you deal with this MAC filtering vs MAC randomization issue?7 -
Needed an application that generates data very fast for a networking application i'm writing but I did notice that /dev/urandom and /dev/random are not very consistent in speed.
Still, i needed something fairly random with more consistent speed. Now, I made an application that caches 1000 randoms upfront and use them for calculation. Now I have my own randomization algorithm backed by the uniqueness of the original rand(). For fun I added data in the set like some phone numbers. I can watch ages to the data to find smth in common or interesting combinations of the data.
I did verify with GPT is the algorithm is unique and it's fail. It generated a complete ML script for itself to check it. Very awesome.
You use urandom, i use retoordom. We are not the same.15 -
I've been wondering about SQLite, how it decides to execute your SQL and then generates byte code to do it.
Hypothetically if you were sufficiently familiar with the quarks of SQLite at a low enough level, one could craft web requests on sites running it, such that the results of each subsequent request, leave the SQLite engine in a particular state, no?
Suppose previous states, when interleaved with subsequent carefully crafted states, lead to execution and injection vulnerabilities.
Arent ideas like this what lead to the randomization of jump addresses in modern architectures?8