Privacy

32191 readers

718 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Privacy concerns with DHCP (DHCP fingerprinting) (lemmy.zip)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So many people here will go though great lengths to protect themselves from fingerprinting and snooping. However, one thing tends to get overlooked is DHCP and other layer 3 holes. When your device requests an IP it sends over a significant amount of data. DHCP fingerprinting is very similar to browser fingerprinting but unlike the browser there does not seem to be a lot of resources to defend against it. You would need to make changes to the underlying OS components to spoof it.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Did we miss the obvious?

https://www.arubanetworks.com/vrd/AOSDHCPFPAppNote/wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html/wwhelp.htm#href=Chap2.html&single=true

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Most modern operating systems randomize the MAC.

that doesn't seem to be uniform behaviour. but i think we agree on the merit. if you are this paranoid, you just don't use networks where you don't have control over the local segment.

[admin@MikroTik] > ip arp print 
Flags: X - disabled, I - invalid, H - DHCP, D - dynamic, P - published, C - complete 
 #    ADDRESS         MAC-ADDRESS       INTERFACE                                                    
 0 DC 192.168.88.160  A2:35:xx:xx:xx:xx bridge                                                       
 1 DC 192.168.88.159  F4:60:xx:xx:xx:xx bridge                                                       
 2 DC 192.168.0.1     44:32:xx:xx:xx:xx ether1                                                       
 3 DC 192.168.88.168  18:3D:xx:xx:xx:xx bridge                                                       
 4 DC 192.168.88.156  70:BB:xx:xx:xx:xx bridge