Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows

A MAC address, per se, won't be visible, but an identification string, stored and forwarded as data, that just happens to always be equal to the MAC address, may be readily visible.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:46:17 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@58.usenet.us.com wrote in :

How so? Actual example please.

Ironocally, when it comes to transfering highly sensetive data, where it's not enough to secure the content, but also secure both ends from being seen as connected with eachother, the insecurity of wireless networks is a very good thing. And instead of buying anonymizer services from someone else, I would rather make my own free anonymizer connecting though cascade supporting, logfree proxies on the net. In combination with usenets' binary groups crouwded with ppl, you can get as good security as anyone else can sell you, if not much better. I think it's even better than networks like Tor where you must trust that input/output is not controlled by an enemy. It's like security built only partly on unknowns, for a sniffer. The nite part is that you only need some gateways, which is easy all time a town is filled by insecure WPA or WEP, some proxies, preferable socks, and a crowded place where your activity can look exactly the same as the rest of the guys are doing. Which brings me to my point, the mean crowd who with necesity must be the very same people you are protecting yourself against, ain't totally useless, right? Well, think again. If it wasn't for them, you didn't need to send secret messages with plans to wipe'em out. The mean crows includes 99,5% of all humans, they who hails steal and share- mentality; Govt's legalized theft and coercion. Am I picked up by the feds yet?

Sounds like the level of "due diligence" done on Bernie Madoff's firm...

You sure about that? That MACs get passed beyond the first routing table...?

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:36:03 +0000, Mark McIntyre wrote in :

MAC address is hardware-type, lower Link Layer networking (MAC sublayer), and thus won't leave a local area network to travel over the Internet. Internet connections are on the higher Internet Layer. See

Hello John, Isn't the MAC address and IP address of the ROUTER logged by the DHCP server at the ISP level?

And, isn't the MAC address and IP address of the P2P program also logging this identifying information?

I mean, there is only ONE MAC address (unless you change it constantly) for each router. They can even track back where that router was sold (which store, when, etc.) I assume.

Why not daily randomize the MAC address and HOSTNAME of the ROUTER?

Hello Chrisjoy,

Does one randomize the MAC address and Host name of the PC or of the router in a typical home network using P2P software on the PC?

The OP posted MAC address & Host name randomizer freeware for the PC but not for the router.

Does MAC address and Hostname randomizer freeware exist for the WRT54G wireless router?

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:11:20 -0800, Bill Davies wrote in :

From my earlier post to this thread:

Your ISP can see your MAC address, but only your ISP, and your ISP knows who and where you are in any event, so randomizing your MAC address wouldn't do any good.

From my earlier post to this thread:

The only thing the remote site can see that might compromise your privacy is your IP address, which could be used to identify you through your ISP (no matter what you do to your MAC address and hostname). The only way to prevent that is to use an anonymous surfing service, ideally one that's outside of USA legal jurisdiction. You can find such services easily with Google.

Who is "they"? Such information would take a court order or law enforcement equivalent.

Because it won't do any real good. Your ISP knows who you are from the IP address.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:16:24 -0800, Bill Davies wrote in :

Why stop there? I hear sacrificing small animals will protect you even more. ;)

All though it's true that ISP know who you are and what IP's you're visiting, it's not true changing MAC cannot do any good. Just think of a reason where it's better for you that an al quida site was visited from your PC X instead of PC Y, a constantly changing MAC would stop law enforcement from using it as an evidence that the traffic in fact went out from PC Y. This is only one of many correlations you could stop by randomize your MACs, and could be good for you.

Yet again it's proven that John Navas is a clueless moron who only got surface knowledge about what he writes about with the greatest self- evidence.

Regardless, Tor is set that the enter/exit nodes can see plaintext data only, which includes passwords (if so sent). If the data is not PT, it is very secire not by the nature of the node operators but by the nature of onion routing. It is a proven network which has passed the examinations of the most rigorous testing. Something that most home-grown systems cannot, or ever will, be able to duplicate.

Your home-grown system will not be open sourced, this is of no matter. What is of matter is the quality of control you can demonstrate in a closed source system. What is your compartmentalization scheme (for your coders). How well is your coding HQ(s) secure? blah blah blah.....

The, by definition, it is not secure.

Your ISP can be entirely taken out of the security loop.

O bullshit, will someone shoot this cretin?

Gee, sensitive to getting his ass shown up.

Imagine that.

On Dec 23, 6:43=A0am, Ari

Sure my system will not be open sourced, it's security lays partly in the unknowns, which includes me sending data only though hotspots at different location every time. Info are going though many steps of cascading socks servers on the net that is already there just like the hotspots. The data itself is wrapped inside an asymetric key but no header data is given so a sniffer will not know what it is. It may be put inside a zipfile where it happends to be a corrupt file. Inside the zip, the rest of the files looks harmless. Another more sofisticated way is to put data inside picture files, example by using the least signiificant bit of each color as a transport for a encrypted packet that does not give itself away by any header. The bits will be seen as random data, just as it bit would be, in a real photo. You now not only got a secure way to transport data, but you have also a secure way to hide the fact that two people are communicating, and on top of that, you leave no tracks on any system that can identify you. I've got great problems seeing how this idea is not much better than any type of anonymizer. The only downside is that you need to find hotspots and proxies/socks. Even if your contact is not to be trusted, his cooperation with Bandit Govt will not help them find you. At the very best they will be able to track every socks connection step by step back to a free hotspot on a cafe you never visited only drived by sending messages though their router, and that's if the socks' are logging traffic, such socks you don't use. I think I would be much more relaxed with this system than ex Tor, where your enemy have been able to limit their problem to a network, where they can contribute to weaken the security by adding new nodes. Using such a network, it's only a matter of time before the enemy got both my input/output node. The nite thing about a secret system is that you have not helped your enemy's task force to limit the scope of their problem. Bad thing about secret system is that you need to be an expert to understand the security grade.

None of those would be high on my list of recommended places. Hell, Anonymizer has taken over 1 mil in government money already, that money has strings. But regardless as most of us don't need to hide from the government, the privacy game is a game of features, you want the most bang for your buck and those places are definitely not it. Overpriced and overhyped.

Comparison shop, it makes all the difference. Stay away from red flags like "No logging", that's a sign of snake oil, and instead do a feature by feature comparison and shop for what best fits your needs. You can find much better deals. Hell, for my needs I really scored, I moved a bunch of my regular domains to Cotse because they offer me even more than my full serviced web host did at less of a price, and Cotse is a well reviewed privacy service to boot so I also get my proxies and such. Shop around.

You can always tell the shills, they get so damned upset when their "recommendation" is challenged. Seriously, "into the twit filter", did you hear the trumpets of self-importance when you typed that? Personally, I they were all valid points. Normally a claim of "No Logs" is enough alone to scream snake oil, but combined with the rest and there is no excuse at all for recommending either of those services, that was some very basic due dilly and it glaringly failed. So you are definitely either a shill or clueless and neither should be recommending pay services in here.

lol

Obviously you missed the points where Naval claimed they were "solid".

Obviously. lol