Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by brynet on Saturday May 28, 2016 @11:52AM
(#11792080)
That is just some diff someone sent to a mailing list, one real nifty feature of OpenBSD's ifconfig(8) is 'lladdr random', which will randomly assign a new MAC address to an interface.
Apparently well received by developers in airport lounges.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by egwynn on Saturday May 28, 2016 @12:02PM
(#11792118)
According to the diff (and its accompanying message) this is what it supplements. It allows one to specify “nsa” instead of “random”, and it’ll fill in the first three bytes (with 00:20:91) for you.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by Sanddancer on Saturday May 28, 2016 @01:14PM
(#11792395)
The NSA is one of the largest hardware purchasers and designers on the planet, and has a ton of custom hardware, etc. It only makes sense or them to have their own oid.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by jhayward on Saturday May 28, 2016 @02:11PM
(#11792629)
They used to be. I dunno if they are in the age of Google, Facebook, and Amazon datacenters.
It seems like I recall in the past that NSA would rather do business under some Department of Agriculture pseudonym, or as some dummy corporation.
I remember talking to one of the engineers from DEC who worked on the original ethernet spec. He said they had a visit from some very smart guys carrying dept. of Agriculture business cards, to talk about what the spec would look like.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by Keyframe on Saturday May 28, 2016 @02:55PM
(#11792838)
I don't know. Bumblehive seems rather big and modern compared to the usual suspect's datacenters: https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/ You can find numerous articles about that particular one around. One can only wonder what kind of technological wonders are in there. That's the public one too. Now, imagine the rest.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by imdsm on Saturday May 28, 2016 @01:34PM
(#11792470)
> An OUI {Organizationally Unique Identifier} is a 24-bit number that uniquely identifes a vendor or manufacturer. They are purchased and assigned by the IEEE. The OUI is basically the first three octets of a MAC address.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by nickpsecurity on Saturday May 28, 2016 @01:11PM
(#11792383)
That's funny. I like screwing with them, too. My last, temporary keypair was labeled "[email protected]." Smart people got a nice laugh out of it. Then, there was another category of persons that had sudden concerns about my true identity. They also had encrypted, authenticated mockery in their inbox upon voicing them.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by hbosch on Saturday May 28, 2016 @01:33PM
(#11792461)
In no way could a phony e-mail address (or any other string, for that matter) tied to a disposable keypair be construed as identity fraud. That would be like claiming "identity fraud" for telling the barista at Starbucks your name is Abraham Lincoln.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by nickpsecurity on Saturday May 28, 2016 @02:12PM
(#11792635)
It's the same. You claimed you had a specific identity. From there, one might look at the specific identity, the evidence behind the claim, and any specific laws. Far as government employees, just claiming to be one might be enough to get you charged. I don't know the case law on it, though, so there could be nuances that protects you in some situations.
Note: An example would be doing it in a fictional movie. I'm sure that's safe as the claim is clearly BS.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by vonklaus on Saturday May 28, 2016 @05:22PM
(#11793592)
hahaha i am not 100% sure. However, in terms of starbucks, you could probably respond with, write Abraham Lincoln, on my cup. Thus what you have said is technicaly simply a command but not a claim.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by nickpsecurity on Saturday May 28, 2016 @05:43PM
(#11793679)
"But, Mr Vonklaus, isn't it true that issuing a command that implicitly creates an idenfity itself an act of identification? Or did you expect us to believe they delivered it to Abe Lincoln himself?!"
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by theoh on Sunday May 29, 2016 @05:50PM
(#11798391)
The theory of "speech acts" goes into this kind of question. In certain contexts, merely saying something does amount to an action. Marriage vows are a familiar example.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by matt-attack on Sunday May 29, 2016 @02:32PM
(#11797573)
It's quite like placing a phone call, flushing the toilet, or drifting into the neighboring lane of traffic: Everyone does it, but it won't work if everyone does it together.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by nickpsecurity on Sunday May 29, 2016 @04:00PM
(#11797953)
Well, I haven't been systematically documenting it or anything. I have some off the top of my head. You have to remember the geographical context. I stay in and around Memphis, TN metro area. We have lots of whites, blacks, and hispanics over here. There's long history of racism. Certain areas are dominated by minorities instead of "majority." We grow up in school hearing everyone's bullshit instead of just one side. So, some toe the party line for their race while others counter it. Quite diverse opinions here vs what you might see on sites with liberal bent like here.
So, here's a few reactions to me putting Tupac on a receipt and a black person having to call it out:
1. Whole room goes silent with whispering and lots of quick, hateful glances my way.
2. Cynicism, with or without voicing it, along the lines of "stupid white guy doing something we don't even pay attention to."
3. Questioning why I used Tupac. I explain he's one of my favorite rappers for unusual wisdom and occasionally devoting songs to doing good in the world. Better than today's idols. This results in total agreement given it's perceived as a tribute to black (or just human) icon. Or uneasy approval where I'm doing it for right reasons but they're still not comfortable with white adopting black culture. Or rejection outright given it's "just wrong" for white person to "take black peoples' shit."
4. Laughter. This might be cynical type where they try to mock me back as I appear to be stirring shit up among races. This might be genuine where they just think it's funny. One guy put on a show asking about where I was touring and wanting an autograph. I played the part without using black language to keep it more genuine on my part. Everyone had fun. My personal favorite.
5. Refusal to serve me. I could've fought it but I just left. This happens anyway in some of the black establishments where they'll come up with an excuse to serve whites last ("we're cleaning... until a black person comes through") or try to make them uncomfortable enough to never return. So, it doesn't bother me given there's alternatives.
6. Shouting and screaming. The blacks start by telling us it isn't right. They mob up in a crowd. They shout insults. They make threats. They tie in all kinds of white, negative stereotypes their parents and media taught them. They make references to the past. The goal is to get white targets to cower in front of them admitting their ideas are truth and whites are scum. They also want the whites to leave along the way.
6. Certain parts, aka The Hood, have people that will attack and try to kill me if I do this. They'll do that to whites and black alike anyway with certain probability. For risk/reward reasons, I very rarely pull a stunt there since they're quite irrational and violent in my hoods past what you would expect. I've seen situations quite like this [1] plenty of times. "Squeeze it, nigga!" at gunpoint is in fact what one said. One holds them off by standing ground, winning initial skirmish while breaking away from encircling crowd, drawing weapon, making right threats while backing out, letting them feel important, and simply never returning. Helps to have backup in case they plan to shoot your house up later. Think why I don't do this more often is obvious now, eh? ;)
So, there's a quick summary off top of head of different reactions I get in Memphis area using Tupac name in food places or anywhere else. Shows the situation isn't as clear cut as either liberals or right-wingers act. The reactions show many different perspectives among blacks about race issues, esp white uptake of black culture or similarities in our experiences of oppression. It also shows that some have negative reactions that are identical to what blacks experienced in mostly white and hateful [to blacks] areas. Shows that racism is not a white-only or white-on-black thing: it's human nature of how groups react to different groups that all people must be aware of to spot and eliminate hateful behavior.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by poizan42 on Saturday May 28, 2016 @01:18PM
(#11792415)
Completely offtopic, but am I the only one who don't like the usage of ! in the strcmp checks? To me conceptually !cond is checking for falsity, but the return value from strcmp is not logically a boolean
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by bpineau on Saturday May 28, 2016 @01:24PM
(#11792432)
It's just a shorthand for '== 0' (since !0 is true, and !<non-zero> is false). strcmp(3) returns 0 when the two strings are identical. So "if (!strcmp(a, b))" means "if the strings a and b are the same.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by anyfoo on Saturday May 28, 2016 @02:26PM
(#11792704)
He understands that, but he does not like to use this shorthand for strcmp, because it conveys a conflicting meaning.
I'm much the same, and I prefer explicitly writing "== 0" in those situations.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by protomyth on Saturday May 28, 2016 @02:46PM
(#11792805)
I'm not sure I see it as conflicting meaning versus how C treats boolean expressions. Logical, I want to know if the strings are not equal and that uses boolean syntax to tell me that as opposed to comparing to zero which doesn't convey the meaning of the statement as fast.
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by lfowles on Saturday May 28, 2016 @05:02PM
(#11793490)
It's an artifact of implementation. In some zany world, strcmp could return EQUAL_ENUM. What you are ideally expressing is that you want to know that both strings are equal as determined by strcmp, not that the strcmp return value is nonzero. Now it just so happens that EQUAL_ENUM=0 in this world, so a side effect is that !strcmp(...) will still work. And we also have plenty of examples using this shorthand that it doesn't seem unnatural to a lot of devs. (Doesn't make it any less boots-on-head strange... when in Rome, do as the Romans do...)
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by protomyth on Saturday May 28, 2016 @05:16PM
(#11793562)
I'm not saying its not screwed up, and I'm sure some enums would be interesting, but they are using it in a logical context so I feel like the ! makes a fair amount of sense.
I do wonder what would have happened if truth had been defined like it is in Forth[1]? That would make me go with the enums.
1) False is 0 (all bits set to 0), and True is -1 (all bits set to 1 giving a twos-complement -1).
Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig'
by int0x80 on Sunday May 29, 2016 @07:11AM
(#11795937)
In the general case I'm with you, but I think !strcmp is a very common idiom that makes me(and most C programmers) go "string equality". There is also the streq(a, b) camp that #define streq !strcmp.
Apparently well received by developers in airport lounges.
http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-current/man5/hostname.if.5
It seems like I recall in the past that NSA would rather do business under some Department of Agriculture pseudonym, or as some dummy corporation.
I remember talking to one of the engineers from DEC who worked on the original ethernet spec. He said they had a visit from some very smart guys carrying dept. of Agriculture business cards, to talk about what the spec would look like.
00-20-91 (hex) J125, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
002091 (base 16) J125, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
9800 SAVAGE ROAD
FT. MEADE MD 20755-6000
US
Makes sense I guess.
And smart FBI agents think it's very funny identity fraud.
I dunno about the legal end, but it's hardly the same as giving a name to a barista.
Note: An example would be doing it in a fictional movie. I'm sure that's safe as the claim is clearly BS.
So, here's a few reactions to me putting Tupac on a receipt and a black person having to call it out:
1. Whole room goes silent with whispering and lots of quick, hateful glances my way.
2. Cynicism, with or without voicing it, along the lines of "stupid white guy doing something we don't even pay attention to."
3. Questioning why I used Tupac. I explain he's one of my favorite rappers for unusual wisdom and occasionally devoting songs to doing good in the world. Better than today's idols. This results in total agreement given it's perceived as a tribute to black (or just human) icon. Or uneasy approval where I'm doing it for right reasons but they're still not comfortable with white adopting black culture. Or rejection outright given it's "just wrong" for white person to "take black peoples' shit."
4. Laughter. This might be cynical type where they try to mock me back as I appear to be stirring shit up among races. This might be genuine where they just think it's funny. One guy put on a show asking about where I was touring and wanting an autograph. I played the part without using black language to keep it more genuine on my part. Everyone had fun. My personal favorite.
5. Refusal to serve me. I could've fought it but I just left. This happens anyway in some of the black establishments where they'll come up with an excuse to serve whites last ("we're cleaning... until a black person comes through") or try to make them uncomfortable enough to never return. So, it doesn't bother me given there's alternatives.
6. Shouting and screaming. The blacks start by telling us it isn't right. They mob up in a crowd. They shout insults. They make threats. They tie in all kinds of white, negative stereotypes their parents and media taught them. They make references to the past. The goal is to get white targets to cower in front of them admitting their ideas are truth and whites are scum. They also want the whites to leave along the way.
6. Certain parts, aka The Hood, have people that will attack and try to kill me if I do this. They'll do that to whites and black alike anyway with certain probability. For risk/reward reasons, I very rarely pull a stunt there since they're quite irrational and violent in my hoods past what you would expect. I've seen situations quite like this [1] plenty of times. "Squeeze it, nigga!" at gunpoint is in fact what one said. One holds them off by standing ground, winning initial skirmish while breaking away from encircling crowd, drawing weapon, making right threats while backing out, letting them feel important, and simply never returning. Helps to have backup in case they plan to shoot your house up later. Think why I don't do this more often is obvious now, eh? ;)
So, there's a quick summary off top of head of different reactions I get in Memphis area using Tupac name in food places or anywhere else. Shows the situation isn't as clear cut as either liberals or right-wingers act. The reactions show many different perspectives among blacks about race issues, esp white uptake of black culture or similarities in our experiences of oppression. It also shows that some have negative reactions that are identical to what blacks experienced in mostly white and hateful [to blacks] areas. Shows that racism is not a white-only or white-on-black thing: it's human nature of how groups react to different groups that all people must be aware of to spot and eliminate hateful behavior.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuYd9pA8LIY
I do wonder what would have happened if truth had been defined like it is in Forth[1]? That would make me go with the enums.
1) False is 0 (all bits set to 0), and True is -1 (all bits set to 1 giving a twos-complement -1).