Skip to main content

wireless networking - Can someone explain how this happened?


I seem to be having some odd results when running netdiscover on my home network. From the cable modem to my scanner (skipping a few peripherals), here's the basic layout:



The cable modem is connected to our router, which also serves as DHCP server and primary Wi-Fi AP.


From there (again, skipping peripherals) the connection goes to a LAN port on another router, which has been stripped of its router roles (DHCP, etc) and acts only as a secondary Wi-Fi AP.


My laptop is connected to the secondary AP, running Windows 7 x64.


I'm running netdiscover from a virtual machine on my laptop, which is running Backtrack Linux.


The virtual machine is connected to my network via a VirtualBox adapter, running in "bridged" mode.


The network's addresses are in the 10.0.0.0/8 range of RFC 1918 address space.



So, I ran netdiscover on the Backtrack VM. Most of the addresses returned were pretty much as expected, except for two.


 IP            At MAC Address      Count    Len   MAC Vendor                   
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 192.168.2.1     00:17:9a:8f:69:cf    01    060   D-Link Corporation           
 192.168.2.1     00:17:9a:8f:69:d0    01    060   D-Link Corporation

I've got a fairly solid guess as to what this is - a D-Link VoIP router that we're only leaving connected (hard-line to the router) for its VoIP functions. The IP address looks like it may be a factory default (I'll be troubleshooting that another time) for the device.


What's I'm scratching my head over now is: Why was the D-Link device at 192.168.2.1 able to receive and return the ARP packets across a 10.x.x.x network?



Answer



Unless you specifically state a range to use, netdiscover will scan for common networks, so this would include 192.168.0.0/16.


An ARP request is broadcast at layer 2, so even though the backtrack PC is on a different IP network to the voip box, the arp request will still be seen and replied to. The request would be in the form of an ARP Probe, which does not contain an IP address to reply to - the reply is sent at layer 2 to the mac address of the device originating the request.


An ARP Probe is a method for determining whether an IP address is in use currently. It is usually used by a device prior to "claiming" an IP address, to ensure no one else on the local network is using it. It can however be used to see what addresses are being used on the local network, and seems likely that netdiscover would use it.


While an arp probe is part of the layer 3 IP protocol, it operates at layer 2. The packet looks a bit like this:


From MAC: , To MAC: ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, Payload: "Is anyone using IP address 192.168.1.1"

So the destination mac is the broadcast mac address - all ones, it matches all addresses. Therefore any layer 2 device such as a switch, will broadcast it out of all ports in the same broadcast domain that the packet was received on. In a domestic router, this means all LAN ports (the lan ports on a domestic router are switchports). If any of the LAN ports are connected to another router's LAN ports, then the LAN ports are all in the same broadcast domain - the packet will be broadcast out of the port on the first router that is connected to the second router, the second router will see the packet is destined for ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff and so will broadcast it out of its own lan ports.


The point here is that a layer 2 broadcast packet will be seen by every device on the network, regardless of IP addresses.


So every device sees it. The voip device sees that it is an ARP probe, and that the IP address the sender is after matches the IP address it has configured, and so replies.


It cannot reply to the originating devices IP address, because the very nature of an ARP probe is that it is used by a device that does not yet have an IP address - it is used to see whether the IP address it wants is already in use. So the place in the packet where the senders IP address would ordinarily be is all zeroes.


And ARP probe reply is therefore sent to the MAC address of the sender.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

keyboard - Is there any utility/method to change Windows key bindings to type rare chars to currently empty bindings?

I'm currently typing this post with my windows XP machine and (Spanish) keyboard, and I'd like to add some extra symbols to my text. I could open the "char map" windows utility, look for the desired symbols, and paste them. But I'd like something quickier. For example, when I'm using my OSX Mac at work, I can easily add a ©, ™, ® or similar symbols, just pressing some weird ALT-GR + G / H / J, key combinations. In my (Spanish) keyboard mapping, these combinations are empty, as they don't produce any char at all, which, on the other hand, is perfectly normal and desirable. So, I thought: Why couldn't I add some extra key mappings on top of my currently empty ALT-GR + G/J/H Keys in my Spanish keyboard, and thus, being able to quickly type these special symbols? So that's my question: Is there any utility/method to achieve that effect under windows? (My version is XP). I've even googled this for some time but no luck. I've been a long term Hot...
Post a Comment
Read more

virtualization - How to select paravirtualization interface in VirtualBox?

Given a windows 8 host system (Intel Core i5) and a Linux Fedora host, I would like to determine the optimal setting for the paravirtual interface. Options are none Default Legacy minimal Hyper-V KVM This page suggest the selection is only based on the guest system: The biggest change in VirtualBox 5.0 is the introduction of paravirtualization support, bringing higher performance and time-keeping accuracy to supported guest operating systems (Hyper-V on Windows and KVM on Linux). Is that correct? Answer The VirtualBox Manual , in the section titled Paravirtualization providers explains very clearly when each should be used (emphasis added): Minimal: Announces the presence of a virtualized environment. Additionally, reports the TSC and APIC frequency to the guest operating system. This provider is mandatory for running any Mac OS X guests. KVM: Presents a Linux KVM hypervisor interface which is recognized by Linux kernels starting with version 2.6.25. VirtualBox's implementati...
Post a Comment
Read more

Desktop reboots itself on sleep or hibernate

I have been using an ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard for main home desktop workstation, operating Windows Vista x64. This computer has right from day one not been able to enter hibernate or standby; after Windows performs its final actions and brings the machine down, it would automatically revive itself for a reboot. Updating to the second latest BIOS (1201)has not helped (the latest BIOS revision would induce video refresh problems rendering it unusable). I have been reading related discussions on incidents similar to mine to no avail of a true workable solution. They appear to be more speculative guesses rather than actual knowledge on the inner workings of motherboard hardware. Does anybody have any electronic engineering experience on PC energy-saving standards to provide a more informed opinion how to go about getting this to work? More stories: this motherboard could not even reboot properly the first thing i used it. It was due to refresh rate of the onboard GPU, which had no influe...
Post a Comment
Read more

security - How is Linux not prone to viruses, malware and those kinds of things?

How is Linux protected against viruses? This question was a Super User Question of the Week . Read the blog entry for more details or contribute to the blog yourself Answer Well, it factually is not... it's just less subject to hackers developing viruses that target Linux systems. Consumer grade computers usually run on Windows and thus, when targeting a wide audience, Windows is the way to go. Don't misunderstand Linux and viruses, there definitely ARE Linux viruses. Some distros have additional protection layers such as SELinux (See here ) in Ubuntu for example. Then there's the default firewall and the fact that alien files don't automatically have permission to be executed. Specific execution permission has to be granted before execution is possible. (See here ) Then there are several other factors that make Linux a hard place to be for viruses usually non-root users on linux systems have no to little executable files at their disposal that would allow for virus...
Post a Comment
Read more