Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 19:36 +0530, Karthikeyan Periyasamy wrote: >> > > Don't allow using a zero MAC address as the station >> > > MAC address. so validated the MAC address using >> > > is_valid_ether_addr. >> > >> > Theoretically, all zeroes might have been a valid address at some >> > point. >> > I see no reason not to reject it, but I'd like to know why you ended up >> > with this now?? >> > >> >> Its a Wireless fuzz testing tool (codenomicon) which sends out different >> types of frames to the AP. It actually tampers legitimate wireless >> frames (Probe, Auth, Assoc, Data etc..) and will send to the AP. I >> thought allowing a zero MAC address station is not a valid. so validated >> the given MAC address. Just for curious, which case all zero address is >> a valid MAC. > > Well, it isn't really, but the OUI 00:00:00 *is* in fact assigned (or > was), and theoretically the vendor could assign it to a device. Heh, now that we allow routing the 0.0.0.0/8 subnet, this means that the following could be a perfectly sensible thing to do: 'ip neigh add 0.0.0.1/8 lladdr 00:00:00:00:00:01 dev wlan0' One bit per address per network layer ought to be enough for everyone, right? ;) -Toke
