Isn't this something that explicit transactions (BEGIN/COMMIT/ROLLBACK) do? Many DB clients can be configured to have autocommit disabled, so that you're forced to either COMMIT or ROLLBACK each transaction.
Yep. The P5 arch (original Pentium) superscalar design, combined with its much faster FPU and separation of data and code caches meant it could run circles around a 486-based CPU, even if it was running up to twice the speed of a 486 contender.
Thanks! It's definitely cool to be able to use my Raspberry Pi (running Kodi with the Moonshine addon) as a "dumb terminal" to stream from my gaming rig from the other side of the house onto my big ass living room TV :).
lol, I used to do this all the time at non-free wifi hotspot locations, only I'd start off with a ping sweep of the entire subnet (nmap -sP) in order to get my ARP cache filled with a bunch of potential usable IP/mac addresses on the network. From there, I'd iterate through each one and set the IP & mac address until I found one that would let me through the firewall.
Granted, being a NOC engineer at Wayport (now AT&T WiFi) certainly helped me understand how it all works.
Yes the key to doing this more seamlessly is to spoof both the IP and the MAC so your machines are not constantly fighting with the other person over the ARP table entry.
Its wifi. You both just pick up the same frame when it is broadcast, then it sees two stations (a level below IP) with the same MAC. Most routers just don't care about that. (it's technically a valid edge case that two stations have the same mac address. It should be vanishingly rare in the wild ... but this is a practical example of why it isn't).
I once bought a cheap Bluetooth dongle from China. Its MAC address was 11:11:11:11:11:11
Obviously there are now a lot of bluetooth dongles in the wild with the same MAC address.
If STP[1] is enabled, but that is unlikely since you'd have dropped connections when roaming for the reasons you just gave. Most likely, STP is not enabled on these networks.
A switched port learns the Mac address for packets sent into it. If port 1 sends a packet with Mac a, the switch associates that address (a) to port 1. When another node sends a packet onto another port with the same mac, say on port 2, the switch will move the learned address a to port 2 and remove it from port 1.
When a switch has learned a mac address all traffic destined to that traffic would be immediately switched to that port. If the switch has no record for that specific mac address it floods all ports except the ingress port. This is expensive and means other devices receive traffic that isn't intended for them so they waste time dropping it.
So in networks that have no protections against those attacks then this could very well be a problem if there are multiple access points and the two nodes are on different access points.
Except that this is a normal thing on wireless networks. A station may roam many times within a few minutes, and due to reflections, may even be in more than one place at a time.
> As a general rule, reset (RST) is sent whenever a segment arrives that apparently is not intended for the current connection. A reset must not be sent if it is not clear that this is the case. There are three groups of states:
> 1. If the connection does not exist (CLOSED), then a reset is sent in response to any incoming segment except another reset. A SYN segment that does not match an existing connection is rejected by this means.
It's possible for a node to be configured not to do this, but this is the default behavior.
"everything works fine" might be overstating a bit, but what happens to packets you weren't expecting when you don't have a connection open for them to go into? They probably get ignored by the network stack.
Worst case scenario, the router/service endpoint sees your connection responses and the other party's strange NACK responses, but I honestly don't know enough about how it works to say "everything works fine"
I'd guess that connectionless protocols will work fine and connected protocols will also work fine. The truth is probably YMMV by protocol, but there is truly no way for the wifi router to detect this is happening or isolate the redundant stations - it's an unencrypted broadcast. The only way this goes sideways is if a connection protocol is engineered to make it go sideways when you try to do that.
I'm pretty sure that any such protocol which succumbs to any unencrypted (or incorrectly keyed) traffic that isn't from the designated counterparty is insecure to begin with. It should be resilient against DoS, so most protocols aren't going to have that vulnerability. Again, I'm guessing, but I'd hope.
I imagine this can only possibly work with unencrypted WiFi.
Still boggles my mind that WiFi clients don't establish an encryption key with the AP and encrypted their traffic even without a shared secret. Yes, that means you can't authenticate the AP, but it would still protect against passive snooping.
Time to consider instead: walk through the plane, look angrily at the other passengers, one at a time, asking: "Do you use 192.168.x.y?". That can solve the problem
If any lawyers or FAA employees are reading this I’m genuinely interested in what, if any, legal implications there would be for running nmap mid flight on an airline. Surely once you have spoofed the MAC address and IP of another passenger to gain unauthorized access to the planes LAN you have committed a crime but what about passively scanning?
Heh, I remember a group of us doing that as well. Also "penny drops" off the monkey bars, where you'd hang upside-down with your legs, swing back and forth, release and essentially do a flip and land on your feet. God we were fearless back in the day.
I have a rule on myself to stay young. Every time I see a swing rope into water I must do a back flip, and every time I see a 1m diving board, I must do a gainer (run forward, back flip).
I'm 41 now, I'm really curious how old I'll be when I can't do them anymore.
We called those "baby drops", and flipping back off the swing seat as it comes forward we called "cherry pickers". I'm 46 now, I can still do both. Once you've learned them, they're easy.
can and do are two different things. things heal a lot faster when the landings are wrong in playground days than they do at 46. i have personal experience with the healing slower bit if not from a cherry picker move.
I tore a rotator cuff when convinced that riding a long board down the street while not in a sober state would be easy. Going downhill of not an impressive hill, and the speed wobble on a board I had been on for 3 minutes suggested time to bail. I didn't roll nearly as well as a younger me would have. Nearly a year sounds about right.
Yeah, You're way off your game when you're drunk. I learned that lesson the hard way a few times over in my early 20s (though not so hard that I needed a trip to the hospital).
As somebody who's gone from: RedHat 5/6 -> Slackware -> Gentoo -> Debian -> Ubuntu -> Debian. Debian (and it's derivatives) is the best of breed and will always be my distro of choice. Great job yall!
I have almost the same way:
Redhat 5 -> Mandrake -> Gentoo -> FreeBSD -> Slackware, and finally Debian Etch in April 2007.
I've been using Debian for the latest 16 years and am very happy with it.
My first distro was Red Hat 5 as well. It is disambigous, it was called "Red Hat Linux version 5". Red Hat Linux went to version 9 I believe before it split into RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and Fedora.
I'm supposed to make a choice? To understand something and then decide for myself? Wtf? This must be some new millennials shit, they want to ruin our society :(
