Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6
[#] Thu May 22 2014 17:01:02 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I actually want to trasmit information over it, but I don't want the information to be seen by tools that normally look for TCP/UDP packets (not because I'm trying to be secret, but because I don't want to distract).

[#] Fri May 23 2014 14:48:17 EDT from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

fleeb - have you ever considered the AX.25 (ham packet radio) package that can be compiled into most linux kernels?

[#] Fri May 23 2014 15:00:48 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Hm, no, I hadn't thought of that.

But then, these are virtual machines. They all live inside one box, and need to communicate with each other. Using ham packet radio transmissions, while very novel, probably wouldn't work well for our needs.

[#] Fri May 23 2014 18:57:08 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

May 23 2014 12:00pm from fleeb @uncnsrd (Uncensored)

Hm, no, I hadn't thought of that.

But then, these are virtual machines. They all live inside one box,

and need to communicate with each other. Using ham packet radio
transmissions, while very novel, probably wouldn't work well for our
needs.



AX.25 works over ethernet or WiFi as well as "ham radio." It's a protocol and it is "medium neutral."

[#] Mon May 26 2014 17:08:47 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Ah... I'll look into it, then. Whatever turns out to be the easiest thing to work with we could use. But, I'll need to make sure that it isn/t implemented over a TCP/IP stack or anything weird like that.... something pure.

[#] Mon May 26 2014 22:59:13 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I actually want to trasmit information over it, but I don't want the

information to be seen by tools that normally look for TCP/UDP packets

(not because I'm trying to be secret, but because I don't want to
distract).

Depending on how much control you have over the operating system implementation on each end, you could simply change the IP stack to use an Ethertype other than 0x0800 (or other than 0x86DD, if you're on IPv6). If the Ethertype is different, sniffer software will simply see frames for an unknown protocol and pass them through opaquely.

[#] Tue May 27 2014 08:44:09 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Oh, that's interesting. I have full control over the machines (they are virtual). I'll look into that, as that seems like the easiest option.

[#] Wed May 28 2014 22:29:30 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yeah, that's coming from experience building and troubleshooting networks during the 1990's. Why is teh Novell busted? Because it speaks IPX over four different frame types. Choose mismatching frame types and your network nodes are blind to each other.

Running IPX frames over raw 802.3 was a naive decision on Novell's part.
Choosing to replace it with not one but *three* non-raw frame types was just plain stupid. DIX Ethernet (what Novell called "Ethernet_II") was, is, and always will be the correct frame type to use on an Ethernet segment. 802.2 SAP and SNAP were both atrocious.

[#] Thu May 29 2014 10:20:30 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Hmm... on Windows, changing the ethertype seems to be more involved. I haven't figured that out yet. There must be a way, though...

[#] Thu May 29 2014 11:18:08 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Hummm... I think I can do this in user-land with my own stack. Maybe. It's certainly interesting, getting into this area of networking.

[#] Fri May 30 2014 00:10:33 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

BPQeth might be worth a go:

(Sorry, Hungarian, so I ran it through google translate) - original url buried in there somewhere:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hu&u=http://wiki.ham.hu/index.php/BPQether_interf%25C3%25A9sz&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbpqether%26start%3D40%26client%3Dubuntu%26hs%3DSWF%26sa%3DN%26channel%3Dfs%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D680

Sounds like you could run the whole ax.25 stack (fun stuff!).  Wish I was young again and could take part.  I have not run the BPQether driver, but I have played around a bit with the rest of the ax.25 user-land stack a bit, so ping me if you find anything of interest or want to ask a lay-person some questions on usage or whatnot that might not be in google already.

Please post back here results of the fun as well, as I think it would fit the room description quite well.

 



[#] Fri May 30 2014 00:27:02 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/AX25-HOWTO/x495.html

Look at 6.1.11

I need to give this a shot.  Sounds like fun!



[#] Fri May 30 2014 08:35:36 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Mind if, if it's ax.25 over TCP/IP, I can't use it. That's one of the things I'm researching as I look over these things.

And from what I've seen, the only way I can get around using TCP/IP involves building a protocol driver for Windows. User-land stacks seem to go over TCP/IP in the end, which isn't helpful t ome.

[#] Fri May 30 2014 08:35:55 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Gads... my English there is atrocious. What the hell is happening to me?

[#] Fri May 30 2014 11:40:36 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

BPQether is not ip ethernet framing 0x800, it is 0x08ff.  Probably not good if you are routing as it most likely won't get routed properly.



[#] Fri May 30 2014 12:58:15 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


So how does one manage to use such a stack in userland without having the operating system (in my case, Windows) complaining that it doesn't know anything about that framing (e.g. it can't build a socket for that framing)?

[#] Fri May 30 2014 13:00:34 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


(looked over the link you sent)

Yep, Linux. Trivial, after a fashion, in Linux.

But for Windows, I need to take the source, and seriously rework some things to make it provide a protocol mini-filter that would work for Windows.

Which is tempting in some ways. I'd love to do it just for shits and giggles.

[#] Fri May 30 2014 17:19:53 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I have not tried this since the days of DOS, but BPQ32 might fit the bill:

http://www.cantab.net/users/john.wiseman/Documents/BPQ32.html

More specifically the driver here:

http://www.cantab.net/users/john.wiseman/Documents/BPQ%20Ethernet.htm



[#] Fri May 30 2014 22:44:50 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

May 30 2014 2:19pm from ax25 @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
I have not tried this since the days of DOS, but BPQ32 might fit the
bill:

http://www.cantab.net/users/john.wiseman/Documents/BPQ32.html

More specifically the driver here:

http://www.cantab.net/users/john.wiseman/Documents/BPQ%20Ethernet.htm


And lest we forget, KA9Q 'NOS' may also be helpful... ;)

--K2NE

[#] Sat May 31 2014 20:58:55 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hmm... on Windows, changing the ethertype seems to be more involved.

I haven't figured that out yet. There must be a way, though...

Yes, there's an easy way. RTOOS !

(I know, I know ... but it had to be said)

Go to page: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6