From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Sep 25 14:26:25 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA06190
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA06108;
          Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA06806; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:24:32 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199609252124.OAA06806@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: Licensing Software
To: dubois@primate.wisc.edu (Paul DuBois)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:24:31 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, current@FreeBSD.org, commercial@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199609252044.PAA29154@night.primate.wisc.edu> from "Paul DuBois" at Sep 25, 96 03:44:56 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > 	de0: Ethernet address 00:80:48:e8:1b:b1
> > --------------------------*****************
> 
> I have a device that changes this value (a GatorBox), and I believe
> under some versions of Ultrix, they reprogrammed the ethernet
> address as well (if I remember correctly, it was in conjunction
> with something to do with DECnet).  So although an address is
> stamped on the card, the system reports a different one.  (Don't
> know why this is done, and it seems to make little sense as it
> could cause a conflict?)

LANalyzer (Excellan) ethernet cards can do this.
Any router which can route DECNet can do this.
Any Sun machine with a LANCE chipset can do this.

Typically, it's done to allow the ethernet address to be set to
the DECNet node address.  Routers had to do it to "bridge"
DECNet "segments", which were non-outable in olver versions of
the DECNet protocol.  NetBEUI has similar constraints.


Yes, this value is spoofable.

This value is, in fact, *more* spoofable than an IP address, since
if I use the ifconfig interface to get the IP address, and I hack
the interface to spoof the license manager, I break my networking
because it will also spoof ifconfig (and netsta -i, etc.).


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.