<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title><![CDATA[[SecurityRatty] tag: registry]]></title>
    <link>http://securityratty.com/tag/registry</link>
    <description></description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:15:48 +0000</pubDate>
    <generator>iRatty Engine</generator>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Frustration with PGP-9.6 and networking]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/1211e2354185cb54588b99973c0191f0</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/1211e2354185cb54588b99973c0191f0</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[So, I recently upgraded from PGp-8.1 to PGp-9.6 and I thought I'd share a bit of the frustration

I was running what I believe to be a fairly standard configuration

Corporate desktop image

Outlook...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[So, I recently upgraded from PGp-8.1 to PGp-9.6 and I thought I'd share a bit of the frustration.<br /><br />I was running what I believe to be a fairly standard configuration.<br /><ul><li>Corporate desktop image<br /></li><li>Outlook 2003</li><li>Symantec AV</li><li>PGP-8.1<br /></li></ul>I decided to upgrade my Outlook to 2007.  Turns out that PGP-8.1 isn't compatible with Outlook 2003, so I needed upgrade.<br /><ol><li>Install PGP-9.6</li><li>reboot twice per instructions</li><li>Find that my networking completely doesn't work.</li></ol>Turns out that in order to get PGP-9.6 working with things like Symantec's AV that hook the network stack you need to back out PGP's POP/IMAP network stack hooking.<br /><ol><li>regsvr32 /u PGPfsshl.dll</li><li>Run a Registry merge on c:\WINDOWS\system32\PGPlspRollback.reg</li><li>Reboot</li></ol>Then of course, if you should happen to upgrade PGP to 9.9 because the update is out, you get to repeat all of those last few steps again.<br /><br />This process of course is made a lot easier if you happen to have another machine with network connectivity, otherwise you're kind of SOL.<br /><br />Just my bit of unfun for the afternoon.<br /><br />It is of course working now and reasonably well.  Kind of sucks that the install isn't a lot easier.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/SecurityRetentive/~4/426964111" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/pgp-9">pgp-9</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/pgp">pgp</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/install pgp-9">install pgp-9</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/pgp-8">pgp-8</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/upgrade pgp">upgrade pgp</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/popimap network stack">popimap network stack</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/network stack">network stack</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/lot easier">lot easier</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/upgrade">upgrade</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/SecurityRetentive/~3/426964111/frustration-with-pgp-96-and-networking.html">Frustration with PGP-9.6 and networking</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[OSfuscate: Change your Windows OS TCP/IP Fingerprint to confuse P0f, NetworkMiner, Ettercap, Nmap and other OS detection tools]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/f3832e30a5771d94dd4085040d808e7f</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/f3832e30a5771d94dd4085040d808e7f</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I was wondering awhile back how one could go about changing the OS fingerprint of a Windows box to confuse tools like Nmap, P0f, Ettercap and NetworkMiner. I knew there were registry setting you could...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[I was wondering awhile back how one could go about changing the OS fingerprint of a Windows box to confuse tools like Nmap, P0f, Ettercap and NetworkMiner. I knew there were registry setting you could change in Windows XP/Vista that would let you reconfigure how the TCP/IP stack works, thus changing how the above tools would detect the OS. I wasn't sure what all registry changes to make, but luckily I found Craig Heffner's work on the subject. In this post I cover the issue of passive/active OS fingerprint detection, as well as release my tool OSfuscate.
<p><a href="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/03Vn2FqYJWbHI0gRYzHRUdpdTQg/a"><img src="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/03Vn2FqYJWbHI0gRYzHRUdpdTQg/i" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IrongeeksSecuritySite/~4/6fYkw5ozRdk" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fingerprint">fingerprint</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tools">tools</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/confuse tools">confuse tools</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fingerprint detection">fingerprint detection</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/registry">registry</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/windows box">windows box</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/nmap">nmap</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/change">change</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tcpip stack">tcpip stack</category>
      <source url="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IrongeeksSecuritySite/~3/6fYkw5ozRdk/i.php">OSfuscate: Change your Windows OS TCP/IP Fingerprint to confuse P0f, NetworkMiner, Ettercap, Nmap and other OS detection tools</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[OSfuscate: Change your Windows OS TCP/IP Fingerprint to confuse P0f, NetworkMiner, Ettercap, Nmap and other OS detection tools]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/3245b66a0c282a2093d5072a11bb78a8</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/3245b66a0c282a2093d5072a11bb78a8</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I was wondering awhile back how one could go about changing the OS fingerprint of a Windows box to confuse tools like Nmap, P0f, Ettercap and NetworkMiner. I knew there were registry setting you could...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[I was wondering awhile back how one could go about changing the OS fingerprint of a Windows box to confuse tools like Nmap, P0f, Ettercap and NetworkMiner. I knew there were registry setting you could change in Windows XP/Vista that would let you reconfigure how the TCP/IP stack works, thus changing how the above tools would detect the OS. I wasn't sure what all registry changes to make, but luckily I found Craig Heffner's work on the subject. In this post I cover the issue of passive/active OS fingerprint detection, as well as release my tool OSfuscate. ]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fingerprint">fingerprint</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tools">tools</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/confuse tools">confuse tools</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fingerprint detection">fingerprint detection</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/registry">registry</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/windows box">windows box</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/nmap">nmap</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/change">change</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tcpip stack">tcpip stack</category>
      <source url="http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/osfuscate-change-your-windows-os-tcp-ip-fingerprint-to-confuse-p0f-networkminer-ettercap-nmap-and-other-os-detection-tools">OSfuscate: Change your Windows OS TCP/IP Fingerprint to confuse P0f, NetworkMiner, Ettercap, Nmap and other OS detection tools</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[OSfuscate: Change your Windows OS TCP/IP Fingerprint to confuse P0f, NetworkMiner, Ettercap, Nmap and other OS detection tools]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/fd747c2c91a8abf71d34c17929fd4ea6</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/fd747c2c91a8abf71d34c17929fd4ea6</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I was wondering awhile back how one could go about changing the OS fingerprint of a Windows box to confuse tools like Nmap, P0f, Ettercap and NetworkMiner. I knew there were registry setting you could...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[I was wondering awhile back how one could go about changing the OS fingerprint of a Windows box to confuse tools like Nmap, P0f, Ettercap and NetworkMiner. I knew there were registry setting you could change in Windows XP/Vista that would let you reconfigure how the TCP/IP stack works, thus changing how the above tools would detect the OS. I wasn't sure what all registry changes to make, but luckily I found Craig Heffner's work on the subject. In this post I cover the issue of passive/active OS fingerprint detection, as well as release my tool OSfuscate.
<p><a href="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/03Vn2FqYJWbHI0gRYzHRUdpdTQg/a"><img src="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/03Vn2FqYJWbHI0gRYzHRUdpdTQg/i" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IrongeeksSecuritySite/~4/CPyWOms5XYA" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fingerprint">fingerprint</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tools">tools</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/confuse tools">confuse tools</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fingerprint detection">fingerprint detection</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/registry">registry</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/windows box">windows box</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/nmap">nmap</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/change">change</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tcpip stack">tcpip stack</category>
      <source url="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IrongeeksSecuritySite/~3/CPyWOms5XYA/i.php">OSfuscate: Change your Windows OS TCP/IP Fingerprint to confuse P0f, NetworkMiner, Ettercap, Nmap and other OS detection tools</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA["Scareware" Vendors Sued]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/116941f75bd6ea940dba21e55c3187e7</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/116941f75bd6ea940dba21e55c3187e7</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[This is good : Microsoft Corp. and the state of Washington this week filed lawsuits against a slew of &quot;scareware&quot; purveyors, scam artists who use fake security alerts to frighten consumers into paying...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/09/microsoft_washington_state_tar.html">good</a>:</p>

<blockquote>Microsoft Corp. and the state of Washington this week filed lawsuits against a slew of "scareware" purveyors, scam artists who use fake security alerts to frighten consumers into paying for worthless computer security software.

<p>The case filed by the Washington attorney general's office names Texas-based Branch Software and its owner James Reed McCreary IV, alleging that McCreary's company caused targeted PCs to pop up misleading security alerts about security threats on the victims' computers. The alerts warned users that their systems were "damaged and corrupted" and instructed them to visit a Web site to purchase a copy of Registry Cleaner XP for $39.95.</blockquote></p>

<p>I would have thought that existing scam laws would be enough, but Washington state actually has a specific law about this sort of thing:</p>

<blockquote>The lawsuits were filed under Washington's Computer Spyware Act, which among other things punishes individuals who prey on user concerns regarding spyware or other threats. Specifically, the law makes it illegal to misrepresent the extent to which software is required for computer security or privacy, and it provides actual damages or statutory damages of $100,000 per violation, whichever is greater.</blockquote><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=RIHdM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=RIHdM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=V0u2M"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=V0u2M" border="0"></img></a>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/alerts">alerts</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fake security alerts">fake security alerts</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/week filed lawsuits">week filed lawsuits</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security alerts">security alerts</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/filed">filed</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/washington">washington</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/washington attorney">washington attorney</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/spyware">spyware</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/lawsuits">lawsuits</category>
      <source url="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/scareware_vendo.html">"Scareware" Vendors Sued</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Root of Trust ?]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/a65dcd69a47316de0df44497406963f0</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/a65dcd69a47316de0df44497406963f0</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Ive given some talks this year about the Internets insecure infrastructure stressing that fundamental protocols such as BGP and DNS cannot really be trusted at the moment. Although they work just fine...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve given <a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/talks/080211-mailserver.pdf">some</a> <a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/talks/080915-ISPsecurity.pdf">talks</a> this year about the Internet&#8217;s insecure infrastructure &#8212; stressing that fundamental protocols such as <a href="http://www.bgp4.as/">BGP</a> and <a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596100575/">DNS</a> cannot really be trusted at the moment. Although they work just fine most of the time, they are susceptible to attacks which can mean, for example, that you visit the wrong website, or your email is intercepted.</p>
<p>Steps are now being taken, <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/08/dns_security_mandatory_for_all.html">rather faster</a> since Dan Kaminsky came up with a <a href="http://www.doxpara.com/?p=1185">really effective DNS poisoning attack</a>, to secure DNS by using <a href="http://www.dnssec.net/">DNSSEC</a>.</p>
<p>The basic idea of DNSSEC is that when you get an answer from the DNS it will be signed by someone you trust. At some point the &#8220;trust anchor&#8221; for the system will be &#8220;.&#8221; the DNS root, but for the moment there&#8217;s <a href="http://www.unbound.net/documentation/howto_anchor.html">just a handful of &#8220;trust anchors&#8221; one level down</a> from that. One such anchor is the &#8220;.se&#8221; country code domain for Sweden. Additionally, Brazil (.br), Puerto Rico (.pr), and Bulgaria (.bg) have signed their zones, but that&#8217;s about it for today.</p>
<p>So, wishing to get some experience with the <a href="http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/">brave new world</a> of DNSSEC, I decided that Sweden was <a href="http://www.cartoonbank.com/item/25468">the &#8220;in&#8221; place to be</a>, and to purchase &#8220;cloudba.se&#8221; and roll out my first DNSSEC signed domain.</p>
<p>The purchase wasn&#8217;t as easy as it might have been &#8212; when you buy a domain, Sweden <a href="http://www.iis.se/docs/general_conditions.pdf">insists</a> that people provide their <a href="http://www.papersplease.org/id.html">identity numbers</a> (albeit they have absolutely no way of checking if you&#8217;re telling the truth) &#8212; or if a company they want a VAT or registration number (which are checkable, albeit I suspect they didn&#8217;t bother). I also found that they don&#8217;t like spaces in the VAT number &#8212; which held things up for a while!</p>
<p>However, eventually they sent me a PGP signed email to tell me I was now the proud owner of &#8220;cloudba.se&#8221;.  Unfortunately, this email wasn&#8217;t in RFC3156 PGP/MIME format (or any other format that my usually <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_(software)">pretty capable email client</a> understood).</p>
<p>The email was signed with key 0xF440EE9B which was reassuring because the <a href="http://www.iis.se/">.se registry</a> gives the fingerprint for this key on their website <a href="https://domainmanager.iis.se/start/customerservice">here</a>. Rather less reassuringly footnote (*) next to the fingerprint says &#8220;<em>.SE signature for outgoing e-mail. (**) June 1 through August 31.</em>&#8221; (the (**) is for a second level of footnote, which is absent &#8212; and of course it is now September).</p>
<p>They also enable you to fetch the key through a link on <a href="http://www.iis.se/support">this page</a> to their &#8220;PGP nyckel-ID&#8221; at <a href="http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&#038;search=0xFCEC5128F440EE9B">http://subkeys.pgp.net</a>.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, fetching the key shows that the signature on the email is invalid.</p>
<p>Since the email seems to have originated in the Windows world, but was signed on a Linux box (giving it a mixture of 0D 0A and 0A line endings), then pushed through a three year old copy of <a href="http://search.cpan.org/dist/MIME-tools/">MIME-tools</a> I suppose the failure isn&#8217;t too surprising. But strictly the invalid signature means that I shouldn&#8217;t trust the email&#8217;s contents at all &#8212; because the contents have definitely been tampered with since the signature was applied.</p>
<p>Since the point of the email was to get me to login for the first time to the registry website and set my password to control the domain, this is a little <a href="http://www.cartoonbank.com/item/32907">unfortunate</a>.</p>
<p>Even if the signature had been correct, then should I trust the PGP key?</p>
<p>Well it is pointed to from the registry website which is a Good Thing. However, they do themselves no favours by referencing a version on <a href="http://www.rossde.com/PGP/pgp_keyserv.html">the public key servers</a>. I checked who had signed the key (which is an <a href="http://www.pgpi.org/doc/pgpintro/#p20">alternative way of trusting its provenance</a> &#8212; since the email had arrived to a non-DNSSEC secured domain). Turned out there was no-one I knew, and of 4 individual signatures, 2 were from expired keys. The other signature was the IIS root key &#8212; which sounds promising. That has 8 signatures, once again not people I know &#8212; but only 1 from a non-expired key, so perhaps I can get to know some of the other 7?</p>
<p>Of course, anyone can sign a key on a public key server, so perhaps it makes sense for .se to suggest that people fetch a key with as many signatures as possible &#8212; there&#8217;s more chance of it being signed by someone they know. Anyway, I have now added my own signature, using an email address at my nice shiny new domain. However, it is possible that I may not have increased the level of trust <img src='http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p><img src="http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/signers.png" alt="" title="Signers of the .se PGP key" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-381"></p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/key">key</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/public key servers">public key servers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/trust">trust</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/iis root key">iis root key</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/key 0xf440ee9b">key 0xf440ee9b</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/pgp">pgp</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/pgp nyckel-id">pgp nyckel-id</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/public key server">public key server</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/pgp key">pgp key</category>
      <source url="http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/09/29/root-of-trust/">Root of Trust ?</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[MadMACs seems to have an issue with the Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN chipset]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/fbce25146fcc827b766a32858a596db2</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/fbce25146fcc827b766a32858a596db2</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I've added the following note to the MadMACs page: A patron of my website pointed out that MadMACs, and other similar tools, seem to have a problem randomizing the MAC address under Windows Vista if...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[I've added the following note to the MadMACs page: A patron of my website 
pointed out that MadMACs, and other similar tools, seem to have a problem 
randomizing the MAC address under Windows Vista if you are using the Intel 
Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN chipset. It will work with the 4965AGN&nbsp; if you 
randomize only the last two digits, and start it with the prefix 1234567890. It 
will also let you set the whole MAC address to DEADBEEFCAFE, or even let you 
randomize all 12 hex digits. However, if you take the default prefix of 00, 
MadMACs will make a random address up and put it in the NetworkAddress registry 
value, but the 4965AGN chipset drivers will not honor it. If anyone knows why, 
please <a href="http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=contact">contact me</a>.<img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IrongeeksSecuritySite/~4/6K5-ravkA9Y" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/madmacs">madmacs</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/4965agn">4965agn</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mac address">mac address</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/4965agn chipset drivers">4965agn chipset drivers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/madmacs page">madmacs page</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/default prefix">default prefix</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/digits">digits</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/hex digits">hex digits</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/prefix">prefix</category>
      <source url="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IrongeeksSecuritySite/~3/6K5-ravkA9Y/i.php">MadMACs seems to have an issue with the Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN chipset</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[MadMACs seems to have an issue with the Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN chipset]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/468f3f379e53b9f5973c9fbe2b4c9b00</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/468f3f379e53b9f5973c9fbe2b4c9b00</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I've added the following note to the MadMACs page: A patron of my website pointed out that MadMACs, and other similar tools, seem to have a problem randomizing the MAC address under Windows Vista if...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[I've added the following note to the MadMACs page: A patron of my website 
pointed out that MadMACs, and other similar tools, seem to have a problem 
randomizing the MAC address under Windows Vista if you are using the Intel 
Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN chipset. It will work with the 4965AGN&nbsp; if you 
randomize only the last two digits, and start it with the prefix 1234567890. It 
will also let you set the whole MAC address to DEADBEEFCAFE, or even let you 
randomize all 12 hex digits. However, if you take the default prefix of 00, 
MadMACs will make a random address up and put it in the NetworkAddress registry 
value, but the 4965AGN chipset drivers will not honor it. If anyone knows why, 
please <a href="http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=contact">contact me</a>.]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/madmacs">madmacs</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/4965agn">4965agn</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mac address">mac address</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/4965agn chipset drivers">4965agn chipset drivers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/madmacs page">madmacs page</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/default prefix">default prefix</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/digits">digits</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/hex digits">hex digits</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/prefix">prefix</category>
      <source url="http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/madmacs-mac-spoofer">MadMACs seems to have an issue with the Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN chipset</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[MadMACs seems to have an issue with the Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN chipset]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/5427748d02bc48472c4b9d6846d98641</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/5427748d02bc48472c4b9d6846d98641</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I've added the following note to the MadMACs page: A patron of my website pointed out that MadMACs, and other similar tools, seem to have a problem randomizing the MAC address under Windows Vista if...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[I've added the following note to the MadMACs page: A patron of my website 
pointed out that MadMACs, and other similar tools, seem to have a problem 
randomizing the MAC address under Windows Vista if you are using the Intel 
Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN chipset. It will work with the 4965AGN&nbsp; if you 
randomize only the last two digits, and start it with the prefix 1234567890. It 
will also let you set the whole MAC address to DEADBEEFCAFE, or even let you 
randomize all 12 hex digits. However, if you take the default prefix of 00, 
MadMACs will make a random address up and put it in the NetworkAddress registry 
value, but the 4965AGN chipset drivers will not honor it. If anyone knows why, 
please <a href="http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=contact">contact me</a>.
<p><a href="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/VM3SGaOKzYHpcpfSDh-HoDC7vHA/a"><img src="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/VM3SGaOKzYHpcpfSDh-HoDC7vHA/i" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IrongeeksSecuritySite/~4/_jK7YuynCNY" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/madmacs">madmacs</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/4965agn">4965agn</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mac address">mac address</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/4965agn chipset drivers">4965agn chipset drivers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/madmacs page">madmacs page</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/default prefix">default prefix</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/digits">digits</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/hex digits">hex digits</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/prefix">prefix</category>
      <source url="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IrongeeksSecuritySite/~3/_jK7YuynCNY/i.php">MadMACs seems to have an issue with the Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN chipset</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Links List 8.22.08]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/e37289e3f28c0134060472b8a33b4f97</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/e37289e3f28c0134060472b8a33b4f97</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Ah, the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. How spectacular. Is that Li Ning running in the sky with the torch? Oooh, aah. And wait, whats that image on the wall behind him? Looks kinda familiaroops,...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; border-left: 0px; border-bottom: 0px" height="170" alt="bsod_nest_main2" src="http://blog.sciencelogic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/bsod-nest-main2.jpg" width="244" align="left" border="0"> Ah, the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. How spectacular. Is that Li Ning “running” in the sky with the torch? Oooh, aah. And wait, what’s that image on the wall behind him? Looks kinda familiar…oops, it’s an <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxcringely/archives/2008/08/geek_week_tk_tk_1.html?source=NLC-NOTES&amp;cgd=2008-08-18" target="_blank">XP blue screen of death</a>….I wonder how much Microsoft paid for advertising during the Olympics?
<p><em>(</em><a href="http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/08/bsod_nest_main2.jpg" target="_blank"><em>Photo Credit: Gizmodo</em></a><em>)</em>
<p>You lose some. You win some: Of course as NBC’s online partner, Microsoft gets a least a cut of the <a href="http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-online-ad-spend-tied-to-olympics-expected-to-reach-100-million/" target="_blank">$100 million dollars in online advertising</a> spent around the Olympics. And the millions of <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2008/tc20080820_627259.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily" target="_blank">downloads of Silverlight</a> aren’t too shabby either.
<p>The Internet is Falling! Arbor Networks, a security and network management company, partnered with ninety network services and content providers from around the world to publish an extensive <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88181_largest_study_of_ipv6_traffic/" target="_blank">study of IPv6 traffic</a> on the Internet. Craig Labovitiz, Arbor Networks chief scientist, stated that <a href="http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/8/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/" target="_blank">only 900 days were left until the end of the Internet</a>, or at least the exhaustion of IPv4 registry allocations. For the past year, the study shows very little IPv6 traffic – something like 1/100<sup>th</sup> of 1% of Internet traffic. Craig credits this to money issues. “The department of commerce estimates it will cost $25 billion for ISPs to upgrade to native IPv6.”
<p>Blogger <a href="http://blog.jamesurquhart.com/2008/08/cloud-computing-bill-of-rights.html" target="_blank">James Urquhart created a bill of rights for cloud computing</a>. The purpose of the bill is to “help guide would-be cloud customers to those clouds best able to guarantee their freedom.” The blogosphere is a great place to get some open debate going, and I applaud James for trying to make something yet so “cloudy” a bit more clear and concrete. But what’s up with the creating a PAC for this?? (Check out the comments.)
<p>Trying to get by on limited resources? Need more money, staff and the freedom to focus on long-term projects? Sound familiar? Then you just might be in <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/08/21/life-is-tough-for-midsize-tech-departments/?mod=djemTECH" target="_blank">IT at a midsize company</a>. (or in marketing at a young but rapidly growing IT company <img src='http://blog.sciencelogic.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> ) Arrow Enterprise Computing Solutions conducted a survey of 200 tech leaders at midsize companies (500 to 3000 employees). The upside: 61% of those surveyed think they’ll be spending more on IT next year – is this bullish thinking about the economy or how much their own business (rev) will be growing?
<p>Bill Snyder calls Dell “<a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/tech-bottom-line/archives/2008/08/michael_dell_is.html?source=NLC-DAILY&amp;cgd=2008-08-21" target="_blank">Bozo of the Month</a>” for trying to trademark “cloud computing”. Yikes. Maybe not a “bozo” move but certainly inadvisable given how ubiquitous the term is. Here’s <a href="http://blog.sciencelogic.com/no-trademark-for-cloud-computing/08/2008" target="_blank">our take</a> on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:15:48 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/network management company">network management company</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/internet">internet</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/internet traffic">internet traffic</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/company">company</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/nbcs online partner">nbcs online partner</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/ipv6 traffic">ipv6 traffic</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/online">online</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/blogger james urquhart">blogger james urquhart</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/ninety network services">ninety network services</category>
      <source url="http://blog.sciencelogic.com/links-list-82208/08/2008">Links List 8.22.08</source>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
