Hi all,
thanks for your answers!
Cheers,
Jakob
On 10.12.18 15:56, Tony Finch wrote:
> Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> I’m also wondering *how* it is doing this — to increment by 2 it sounds
>> like there is state being kept - perhaps dig simply relies on the kernel
>> for the source port and isn’t
Warren Kumari wrote:
> I’m also wondering *how* it is doing this — to increment by 2 it sounds
> like there is state being kept - perhaps dig simply relies on the kernel
> for the source port and isn’t randomizing at all ( and so the difference is
> actually OS difference, and not dig differences
At Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:48:36 -0800,
Warren Kumari wrote:
> > * Jakob Dhondt:
> >
> > > I have just noticed that when using dig (different versions) on Mac OS
> > > (High Sierra) over IPv6 the source port is not randomized.
>
>
> Hmmm. I’d never noticed that, but I certainly wouldn’t have expected
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:19 AM Ralph Seichter
wrote:
> * Jakob Dhondt:
>
> > I have just noticed that when using dig (different versions) on Mac OS
> > (High Sierra) over IPv6 the source port is not randomized.
Hmmm. I’d never noticed that, but I certainly wouldn’t have expected it -
I’m also w
* Jakob Dhondt:
> I have just noticed that when using dig (different versions) on Mac OS
> (High Sierra) over IPv6 the source port is not randomized.
I may be having a senior moment, but don't IPv6 privacy extensions cover
address randomization rather than port randomization?
-Ralph
Dear list,
I have just noticed that when using dig (different versions) on Mac OS
(High Sierra) over IPv6 the source port is not randomized. Instead, the
port is incremented by 2 every time I execute the dig command. Is this a
known issue? I have tried to reproduce this behavior on Linux where,
wi
6 matches
Mail list logo
