Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:36:07 -0500
From:      "Derek Marcotte" <derek@cpainc.ca>
To:        <ask@un.kiev.ua>
Cc:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re[2]: ARP poisonong. LIVE_MAC
Message-ID:  <002b01c3eb45$5fff3f20$0301a8c0@office.cpainc.net>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In-Reply-To: <80491713566.20040126101403@un.kiev.ua>

You want to deny physical connectivity to the LAN, from a
particular host, period.

You might try setting up a quasi-switch with bridge (kernel
option see LINT), plug a whole bunch of network cards in, and
downing the interfaces when they don't pay... It would be a full
duplex, dual speed-hub, which is probably fine, anyways... You'd
also need cross-over cables for all of the PCs becuase it's a
HOST to HOST connection.  I'd recommend the DLink DFE-570TX, but
I don't know that they make it anymore... Intel makes some good
multi-port adapters.  Also a PCI bus is limited to pushing 1056
Mbps (32-bits * 33Mhz), so you can really max out your system
(potentially 200Mbps/adapter) quickly...

The best option would be to go with something that is designed
for this sort of thing.  A Cisco catalyst (1900s and 2900s are
pretty cheap these days) is.  You can write a script that logs
into the switch, and ups and downs the port when they don't pay,
or their account is up to date.

Just a thought...  A dedicated switch would probably be the best
way to deal with this, since you are switching the traffic
anyways.

Alternatively, you can mess with ports/net/nemesis to craft ARP
packets, and so can the connected device, because they still have
physical access to the LAN.  Not to mention that they are still
capable of denying service to other customers via the exact same
method that you use, even though they are "disabled."

Cheers,
Derek



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002b01c3eb45$5fff3f20$0301a8c0>