Woops - percentages flipped - that's: > IPMI 1.5: 195601 63.3% > > IPMI 2.0: 113175 36.7%
¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> On Jul 2, 2013, at 1:43 PM, dan farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks - > > I've been working on some survey work on IPMI systems with HD Moore; here are > some brief #'s in case any are interested. > > The internet (e.g. 0/0 (minus private nets) was scanned with Get Channel > Authentication Capabilities packets. Of those 308,776 answers were culled. > > Now here's where it gets a bit odd; the breakdown of 1.5 vs. 2.0: > > IPMI 1.5: 195601 36.7% > > IPMI 2.0: 113175 63.3% > > It seems almost unbelievable (well, I suppose I could, but it sure looks > suspicious to me ;)) that only about 37 percent of systems talk IPMI 2.0. > Now to be fair, these are only ones left to hang to dry on the internet, but > still. > > Here's the best method I could come up with (thanks to Jarrod on this as > well): > > FWIW, the Get Ch Auth Cap takes only two bytes; according to tables 18-14 > (1.5) and 22-15 (2.0) the 2nd byte will be 04, which means ask for > Administrator. The first byte is either 0E (1.5) or 8E (2.0); the E part is > the current channel, and if you specify an 8 it's either reserved (1.5) or > ask for extended data (2.0). > > So send a packet with the channel/priv bytes set to "\x8E\x04", and in theory > a 1.5 system will either choke and send an error code ("0xcc" would be the > expected one) or send the normal response (and hopefully if it's 2.0 fluent > it'll send the full data, revealing itself to be 2.0.) Does this seem > reasonable? > > Does anyone have any thoughts on any other things to try to determine > versions (anonymously/without-privs-or-auth)? Do the #'s seem reasonable? > Do any vendors still make 1.5-only systems? > > Thanks - > > dan > > ¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> >
_______________________________________________ Freeipmi-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel
