Do you want Gonzo to post your real name?

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by moetheman

Point remains: A packet sniffer can be used to determine the MAC address within a TCP packet.

This had me so curious, I did some digging and found that packets do not contain a MAC Address. This point is also stated quite clearly on a number of the packet sniffer software websites out there.

Examples of what is contained in a packet can be found at http://www.netfor2.com/tcp.htm and http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1845 and at http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorr...t-decode3.html Those are just a few examples of what I found, there are many more.

So, I am sorry moetheman, but you appear quite wrong in this. I have yet to find anywhere that says that a MAC Address is discoverable outside a LAN without broadcasting it or using it as part of a secure login schema.

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

This had me so curious, I did some digging and found that packets do not contain a MAC Address. This point is also stated quite clearly on a number of the packet sniffer software websites out there.

Examples of what is contained in a packet can be found at http://www.netfor2.com/tcp.htm and http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1845 and at http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorr...t-decode3.html Those are just a few examples of what I found, there are many more.

So, I am sorry moetheman, but you appear quite wrong in this. I have yet to find anywhere that says that a MAC Address is discoverable outside a LAN without broadcasting it or using it as part of a secure login schema.

Look, read what I fucking wrote before you post.

Here is the link to one of the TEXTBOOKS I read. See page 280 for VERIFICATION of what I was referring to when I broke it all down for mediaguy:

http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Guide-Comp...5911346&sr=8-1
Also, you don't understand the context of all this. You wrote that "I was wrong" AS IF this were AN OPINION on my behalf. You are mistaken. What I have referred to is a VERIFIABLE FACT.

Buy the textbook, read it, understand it, and you will have all the answers you need in relation to the subject.

It's around $50, 1,600+ pages, and highly technical, but it's there if you want it.

Page 280.

Anyone who wants me to basically scan the page and post it here can go fuck themselves.

[Hammer]

Hey Moe.


























I didn't really want anything, I'm just a big fan of the 3 Stooges and felt like saying, "Hey Moe". Woo woo woo.

[Mediaguy]

Hey Moe

You're wrong. Got the texts, read the technical, and talked to a microsoft programmer.... personal network card MAC addresses aren't contained within the ethernet envelope, the TCP/IP packet or anywhere outside my LAN.

Stop posting to the contrary. You're wrong.

Quite simply you are incorrect, check with your so-called tech community, it's not there that info, you're wrong wrong wrong....TCP/IP packets carry the MAC address of the last device that forwarded them, that's it, if they had anything compared to an ARP table for some reason, all our broadband and DSL connections would be as fast as dial-up.

No MAC Address. C'est toot. you may have mis-read whatever fifty dollar text book you got, that's all and understandable... you even had me doubting what I was reading... but nope.

[gonzo]

Sometimes I feel like Im fishing in a baited pond.

Can I send you guys some brownies to go with those cookies?

You really really love this place!

I can tell.

[Hammer]

Programmer fights are great. I'd pass on a hockey game to keep watching this thread.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Programmer fights are great. I'd pass on a hockey game to keep watching this thread.

That's cause your not Canadian. I kind find paint drying more amusing but it doesn't last as long.

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

Hey Moe

You're wrong. Got the texts, read the technical, and talked to a microsoft programmer.... personal network card MAC addresses aren't contained within the ethernet envelope, the TCP/IP packet or anywhere outside my LAN.

Stop posting to the contrary. You're wrong.

Page 280. Your "microsoft programmer" is obviously fictional.

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

Quite simply you are incorrect, check with your so-called tech community, it's not there that info, you're wrong wrong wrong....TCP/IP packets carry the MAC address of the last device that forwarded them, that's it, if they had anything compared to an ARP table for some reason, all our broadband and DSL connections would be as fast as dial-up.

No MAC Address. C'est toot. you may have mis-read whatever fifty dollar text book you got, that's all and understandable... you even had me doubting what I was reading... but nope.

Page 280. Buy it, read it, . . . hahaha . . . how pathetic of you.

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

You're wrong. Got the texts

You got the text?

RIGHT.

[DannyCox]

I guess your just going to stand behind your supposed single source of "proof" to back up your claim...the single source that you refuse to share. If what you say is so obviously true, you should easily be able to find reference to it all over the Internet and be able to post links to valid sites, like I did to refute your claims.

Yelling out "Page 280...Page 280...Page 280" on every one of your posts is just making you look foolish. As Ben Franklin said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It is time for you to give this up and concede you are wrong.

[softball]

john 3:16

[moetheman]

fla

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I guess your just going to stand behind your supposed single source of "proof" to back up your claim...the single source that you refuse to share. If what you say is so obviously true, you should easily be able to find reference to it all over the Internet and be able to post links to valid sites, like I did to refute your claims.

Yelling out "Page 280...Page 280...Page 280" on every one of your posts is just making you look foolish. As Ben Franklin said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It is time for you to give this up and concede you are wrong.

Your logic is flawed. The fact that you cannot find something online for free means nothing as to whether or not it exists, or whether it is accurate.

I shared the source, however, if you are too cheap to buy a textbook, that's YOUR problem.

Quit trying to get me to violate copyright and post a scan of the page. Not doing it.

You all look pretty ridiculous, clamoring for an answer and refusing to buy a textbook, after someone has posted a link to it on Amazon, and given you the page number to where the information is located.

Go on, keep making asses of yourselves . . . I posted a link to the info and a page number reference. QUIT BEGGING FOR A FREEBIE ALREADY

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I guess your just going to stand behind your supposed single source of "proof" to back up your claim...the single source that you refuse to share. If what you say is so obviously true, you should easily be able to find reference to it all over the Internet and be able to post links to valid sites, like I did to refute your claims.

Yelling out "Page 280...Page 280...Page 280" on every one of your posts is just making you look foolish. As Ben Franklin said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It is time for you to give this up and concede you are wrong.

Here is the cut and past from page 280... drop your email in here if you want the pdf scan of the page.

I dont have FTP access currently to the Oprano server so I cant send it up.

--------------------------280-------------------------------------------

The most important distinction between these types of addresses is the distinction between
layers two and three themselves: layer two deals with directly-connected devices (on the
same network) while layer three deals with

indirectly-connected devices (as well as
directly-connected). Say, for example, you want to connect to the Web server at http://
www.tcpipguide.com. This is a web site that runs on a server that has an Ethernet card in it
for connecting it to its Internet service provider site. However, even if you know its MAC
address, you cannot use it to talk directly to this server using the Ethernet card in your
home PC, because the devices are on different networks.in fact, they may be on different
continents!
Instead, you communicate at layer three, using the Internet Protocol and higher layer
protocols such as TCP and HTTP. Your request is routed from your home machine, through
a sequence of routers, to the server at The TCP/IP Guide, and the response is routed back
to you. The communication is, logically, at layers three and above; you send the request not
to the MAC address of the server.s network card, but rather to the server.s IP address.
However, while we can virtually connect devices at layer three, these connections are
really conceptual only. When you send a request using IP, it is sent one hop at a time, from
one physical network to the next. At each of these hops, an actual transmission occurs at
the physical and data link layers. When your request is sent to your local router at layer
three, the actual request is encapsulated in a frame using whatever method you physically
connect to the router, and passed to it using the router's data link layer address. The same
happens for each subsequent step, until finally, the router nearest the destination sends to
the destination using its data link (MAC) address. This is illustrated in Figure 44.

Converting Layer Three Addresses to Layer Two: Address Resolution

The basic problem is that IP addresses are

too high level for the physical hardware on
networks to deal with; they don't understand what they are. When your request shows up at
the router that connects to The TCP/IP Guide, it can see the http://www.tcpipguide.com
server's IP address, but that isn't helpful: it needs to send to server's MAC address.
The identical issue exists even with communication between devices on a LAN. Even if the
Web server is sitting on the same desk as the client, the communication is logically at the IP
layer, but must also be accomplished at the data link layer. This means we need a way of
translating between the addresses at these two layers. This process is called address
resolution.

Key Concept:

Address resolution is required because internetworked devices
communicate logically using layer three addresses, but the actual transmissions

between devices take place using layer two (hardware) addresses.

The TCP/IP Guide - Version 3.0 (Contents) �� 280
© 2001-2005 Charles M. Kozierok. All Rights Reserved.

[Mediaguy]

Originally Posted by moetheman

You got the text?

RIGHT.

You are correct. I did not acquire your particular bible, I referred to texts, in the plural sense, which contained much information and instructional perhaps not included in your sacred text which seems to be the only source for the occult, secret knowledge which all other sources refute.

[moetheman]

ho

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

You are correct. I did not acquire your particular bible, I referred to texts, in the plural sense, which contained much information and instructional perhaps not included in your sacred text which seems to be the only source for the occult, secret knowledge which all other sources refute.

Have you any idea how ridiculous your little charade is?

"sacred text" "occult" . . . sheer childish ignorance on your behalf. I could tell you were a clown the second I saw a picture of you.

"REFUTE"? Look up the meaning of that word, I don't think that means what you think it means . . .

You two are going to look as stupid as you deserve to when someone who reads this thread gets that book (or quotes another textbook on networking) and posts the info from the page I have quoted . . .

Do you two clowns REALLY FUCKING THINK that I would post a reference to a textbook AND a page number IF I WERE NOT 100% certain that I am right?

HAHAHAHAHA

I am a programmer, you twits, my life REVOLVES around accurate information . . . not around little cheating and stealing games, like SOME people around here . . .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You two are fun . . . c'mon, keep entertaining me . . .

[softball]

Originally Posted by moetheman

Look, read what I fucking wrote before you post.

Here is the link to one of the TEXTBOOKS I read. See page 280 for VERIFICATION of what I was referring to when I broke it all down for mediaguy:

http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Guide-Comp...5911346&sr=8-1
Also, you don't understand the context of all this. You wrote that "I was wrong" AS IF this were AN OPINION on my behalf. You are mistaken. What I have referred to is a VERIFIABLE FACT.

Buy the textbook, read it, understand it, and you will have all the answers you need in relation to the subject.

It's around $50, 1,600+ pages, and highly technical, but it's there if you want it.

Page 280.

Anyone who wants me to basically scan the page and post it here can go fuck themselves.

What I don't get is how the hell you can get so worked up about this geek shit. You must be a hit in bars. I bet you can pick up girls faster that Lawrence Connor. This is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo freeking boring.

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by moetheman

Anyone who wants me to basically scan the page and post it here can go fuck themselves.

I do find this amusing. I just asked the question of MAC Addresses in packets, and never got an answer. I then spent about 30 minutes checking sites (some of which I linked to in my previous post, because I believe a person should backup what he is stating) and found, conclusively, that MAC Addresses do not make up any part of a TCP/IP Packet. moetheman then has to resort to using profanity in his answer, and still has not shown a thing to back up his claim, other than an a reference to a page in some obscure networking book.

Moe, you can use all the profanity that you like, but I will state that you "are wrong". I also know that everyone else here thinks you are wrong as you refuse to support any claim you make with documentation. I backed up what I said, now please do the same. And I think we need more than the single reference that you eluded to. If what you state is accurate, you should easily be able to find backup across the 'net.

BTW, just as an aside......who is "moetheman" anyway?? Am I just having a discussion with yet another surfer/wannabe??

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I do find this amusing. I just asked the question of MAC Addresses in packets, and never got an answer. I then spent about 30 minutes checking sites (some of which I linked to in my previous post, because I believe a person should backup what he is stating) and found, conclusively, that MAC Addresses do not make up any part of a TCP/IP Packet. moetheman then has to resort to using profanity in his answer, and still has not shown a thing to back up his claim, other than an a reference to a page in some obscure networking book.

Moe, you can use all the profanity that you like, but I will state that you "are wrong". I also know that everyone else here thinks you are wrong as you refuse to support any claim you make with documentation. I backed up what I said, now please do the same. And I think we need more than the single reference that you eluded to. If what you state is accurate, you should easily be able to find backup across the 'net.

BTW, just as an aside......who is "moetheman" anyway?? Am I just having a discussion with yet another surfer/wannabe??

Check your private messages here and you will find plenty of information there.

[Toby]

- Page 7 -

I can't decide whether or not it's time for the beating a dead horse smiley.

[gonzo]

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I do find this amusing. I just asked the question of MAC Addresses in packets, and never got an answer. I then spent about 30 minutes checking sites (some of which I linked to in my previous post, because I believe a person should backup what he is stating) and found, conclusively, that MAC Addresses do not make up any part of a TCP/IP Packet. moetheman then has to resort to using profanity in his answer, and still has not shown a thing to back up his claim, other than an a reference to a page in some obscure networking book.

Moe, you can use all the profanity that you like, but I will state that you "are wrong". I also know that everyone else here thinks you are wrong as you refuse to support any claim you make with documentation. I backed up what I said, now please do the same. And I think we need more than the single reference that you eluded to. If what you state is accurate, you should easily be able to find backup across the 'net.

BTW, just as an aside......who is "moetheman" anyway?? Am I just having a discussion with yet another surfer/wannabe??

Page 280. If I were on a tech board (not that there would be a need to) I would scan the page and temporarily upload it to a free server someplace . . . give it up, you are not going to get me to do that here, if you want quality info GET A TEXTBOOK . . .