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

  • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I guess the hostname could be used to defeat MAC randomization if you use public WiFi like hotels, airports and coffee shops. You could probably identify repeat users if you cared enough.

    But then your worry should be the security cameras not the WiFi, because that’s what’s gonna tie you personally to your device connecting.

      • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You need to say more than that about what your concern is, especially on devices configured for Mac randomization and other privacy features.

        Aruba is looking at the dhcp traffic and inferring information about the device. The device is not sending all of this data.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Your router always knows your Mac address, no matter how you got your ip assigned. And yes, you can use it to identify the client - that is why it is there. This whole post is nonsense written by someone who doesn’t really understand what dhcp is or how it works. Long story short, don’t look for privacy on local Ethernet segment :D

      • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Long story short, don’t look for privacy on local Ethernet segment :D

        You seem to be forgetting that a lot of people use portable devices on other networks than their home one.

      • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Most modern operating systems randomize the MAC. DHCP does have extra fields such as the device’s hostname that can be used to counter that.

        But as I said, that’s unlikely to be the weakest link. If you don’t trust the network you’re also likely in a public environment where people can just see you anyway.

        • user134450@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Most modern operating systems randomize the MAC.

          [citation needed]
          having the option to randomize the MAC is not the same as actually doing that. There are also a few downsides to random MACs, like captive portals not remembering you on public WiFis.

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          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 
          

          • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            you just don’t use networks where you don’t have control over the local segment.

            Easier said than done. Sometimes it’s not an option.