Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP

2018-05-17 Thread Vincent van Dam
> On 16 May 2018, at 15:49, Erik Kline wrote: > > In the latter case especially, what becomes clear is that the UE needs > to be able to receive an unsolicited packet. ICMP is a canonical > example of receiving and processing an unsolicited packet. But it > could also be something like a UDP s

Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP

2018-05-17 Thread Warren Kumari
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM Erik Kline wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 08:17, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > Erik Kline wrote: > > > In the latter case especially, what becomes clear is that the UE > needs > > > to be able to receive an unsolicited packet. ICMP is a canonical

Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP

2018-05-17 Thread Erik Kline
The point about UDP was primarily that the key attribute is the ability to receive an unsolicited packet, not that it was better than ICMP. On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 17:10, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM Erik Kline wrote: > > On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 08:17, Michael Richardso

Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP

2018-05-17 Thread Michael Richardson
Erik Kline wrote: > One problem with UDP is that if the enforcement point is well upstream of > several firewalls, it likely won't get through. because random UDP is evil? I thought it was just enterprise firewalls that felt this way. Surely, people setting up a captive portal could

Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP

2018-05-17 Thread Michael Richardson
Warren Kumari wrote: >> The fewer privilege escalation points the better, I suppose. From that >> perspective a UDP socket may be less concerning, but perhaps not by much. >> NetworkMonitor has the appropriate privileges to do the needful, > regardless. > I'll start off by a