The DMZ

forest

8:00 PM

PMK = PSK = PBKDF2(password, SSID, SSID-length, 4096, 256)

So not encrypted, hashed.

Anonymous

Well in that case then, the handshake is neither encrypted nor hashed.

Anonymous

The encryption comes AFTER the handshake is successful.

forest

PBKDF2 uses hashing, typically HMAC (although it could in theory use any keyed hash function). For WPA2, it uses 2000 iterations of HMAC-SHA1.

Anonymous

I'm even more confused now.

nobody

@forest I wish I could explain... I have reason to believe that for my particular case, there is a slight chance of getting on the watch lists

forest

8:01 PM

@nobody Fair enough.

Anonymous

Note to self: glad I'm doing something other than network security. Its fucking trash.

Anonymous

:D

nobody

I wonder what the IEEE engineers were smoking?

Anonymous

I want some of it that's for sure...

forest

They were smoking... hash. Geddit?

nobody

8:03 PM

:D

Anonymous

I think everything I knew about WPA2 is just wrong, now.

Anonymous

But I don't care enough about this anymore to find out.

nobody

@Jis12yearsold. I have that feeling every three months

forest

@Jis12yearsold. And WPA3 is even more complex!

Anonymous

HAh, yes it is!

Anonymous

8:04 PM

nevermind.

nobody

Like, seriously, just do DHE with PSK for authentication. Or adapt TLS

forest

wot

Anonymous

I just had a .5 second breakdown, let's not talk about it.

forest

@nobody WPA3 uses ECDHE, I believe. But yeah, it could have just used TLS 1.3.

nobody

I don't plan to figure out WPA3 anytime soon, specially since its used so rarely

forest

8:05 PM

@Jis12yearsold. While you do Windows stuff, might be interesting: blog.can.ac/2019/10/19/…

Anonymous

Ooh, awesome. Thank you.

Anonymous

I'm writing custom shellcode right now, trying to optimize it.

forest

*nix shellcode really does seem easier.

No need to look up some stupid DLLs.

Anonymous

Yeah, it is a lot less work in my experience.

Anonymous

Windows is quite a pain indeed.

Anonymous

8:09 PM

Limited experience, I should say.

forest

@Jis12yearsold. Why can't you call syscalls directly? Why do you need to access kernel32 or whatever it is when you could just put some stuff in a few registers and call syscall?

Anonymous

As far as I know, that's just the architecture.

Anonymous

You have to call them from a DLL.

Anonymous

But you first need to find where the DLL is in memory.

Anonymous

SO you need to build code to do that.

forest

8:10 PM

That doesn't make sense.

Anonymous

Once you know where it is, you need to load it.

forest

Whatever the DLL is doing, you could do directly.

Anonymous

Then once you load it, you can use another function to find the functions you need.

Anonymous

I mean, this is the issue.

Anonymous

I cannot find anyone who does it like that.

forest

8:10 PM

It sounds like you're loading library functions which are wrapper to syscalls rather than syscalls themselves.

Anonymous

For Windows, it seems like you have to use the API.

forest

@Jis12yearsold. Then what does that DLL do?

If it loads into the same address space, then it means you can just do what it does.

Anonymous

The DLL has the functions which are wrappers for those syscalls, as you said.

forest

I don't know if Windows passes syscall arguments through registers or the stack, but whichever it does, it has to be possible to call them directly without using a wrapper.

Anonymous

So, there might be a way of doing it like that, there probably is.

Anonymous

8:13 PM

But everywhere I look, shellcodes are just using the Windows calls to build whatever they want to build.

forest

Maybe that's more stable across versions.

Anonymous

Oh, it is.

Anonymous

Because the syscall numbers change every update.

Anonymous

As I mentioned before. So doing it via the syscall directly is... Futile, I guess.

forest

ah yeah

Anonymous

8:14 PM

Or well, overly inefficient.

forest

But they're stable across machines of the same version, right?

It's not like Windows randomizes its syscall table on install/boot?

Anonymous

Yeah.

Anonymous

Stable per version.

Anonymous

But for Windows 10 especially, they change a lot.

forest

Do they actually randomize it, or do they just shift like you have syscalls 1 2 3 4 5, and 3 is removed, so now instead of 1 2 4 5 they rename 4 and 5 to 3 and 4?

Anonymous

8:15 PM

It seems like, to me at least, they just pick numbers out of fucking thin air.

forest

huh

Anonymous

There doesn't seem to be any logic to it at all...

Anonymous

Not all of the syscall numbers change, either.

Anonymous

They change some, they don't change others. Then the next time they change some others and not the others.

Anonymous

They probably have a system but its closed source so we just don't know why or how they change the numbers I guess.

forest

8:17 PM

That's so dumb.

Anonymous

Yes... Quite.

forest

On Linux the syscall numbers are generally stable for any given architecture.

Different arches may be different, like a MIPS syscall might be 4024 but on x86 would be 72.

But x86 syscall 72 will always be x86 syscall 72.

Anonymous

Yeah, I think I also mentioned before too - there doesn't seem to be a published reason for actually changing them at all.

Anonymous

They just do...

Anonymous

If they think its better security or whatever, who knows...

forest

8:19 PM

(And syscall 72 is... sys_fcntl, looks like)

Anonymous

something file related...? :D

forest

Yeah: man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fcntl.2.html

Anonymous

I don't actually know what it's used for.

forest

Operates on file descriptors. Can be used to e.g. change flags on open fds.

So you can open a file as read-only, but use fcntl to set it writable later without having to close it and open it again with new flags. Can also duplicate file descriptors, set locks, etc.

Anonymous

Ahhh

Anonymous

8:21 PM

Nice :D

Anonymous

man i feel sick.

Anonymous

i think all this israel stuff finally hit my stomach... :D

forest

It's not healthy.

Anonymous

I should go to sleep. i actually am feeling quite nauseous but fuck it.

forest

Might want to stay up and watch TV or something to calm down.

Anonymous

8:23 PM

ill stay up a bit longer ive not vomited yet so

Anonymous

must be fine!

Anonymous

@forest yeah its actually not...

Anonymous

@forest but but but... but work...

forest

Work can be fun.

Anonymous

Yeah. I don't feel like I have done enough today.

Anonymous

8:30 PM

Although, I am really stuck in a cycle trying to get this shellcode to be smaller.

Anonymous

It's actually not that easy...

Anonymous

I guess it gets easier than more asm tricks you learn and windows tricks.

Anonymous

I've seen like tweet size shellcodes :d

Anonymous

BREAKING: Four arrested over 'antisemitic abuse shouted from car' in London

►

Anonymous

THEY BLEEPED THE FUCKING VIDEO.

Anonymous

8:33 PM

Whats wrong with the people in this country.

Anonymous

in the world...!?

Anonymous

IS EVERYONE A RETARD? HOLY FUCK.

Anonymous

"antisemitic abuse was shouted! (but we cant tell you what it is)"

forest

That's... stupid.

Anonymous

just lol...

forest

8:35 PM

So we don't know if he shouted "Support Palestine!" or "gas the ki***!"?

Anonymous

Nope. They bleeped 80% of what was said.

Anonymous

You can get like, a few words out.

Anonymous

something something something daughters something something we support palestine

Rory Alsop

@EvanCarroll It was very much not on topic here. More than happy for you to take that elsewhere, but we have seen many years of your attempts to subvert Stack Exchange sites so you get no more benefit of the doubt from me.

Anonymous

@RoryAlsop Just out of curiosity - at what point does something become "not on topic".

Anonymous

8:38 PM

Because we discuss politics all the time.

Anonymous

So if that's not on-topic then I have to say, I absolutely disagree.

Rory Alsop

I think @AviD had sufficiently covered that. This chat is intended to support the information security suite. Yes, it is acceptable to veer from that, but when 90% of chat is just politics - take it to politics chat or somewhere else.

Anonymous

Well, I also disagree with that response.

Rory Alsop

And specifically this time, in reading the transcript, there were calls that very much break or code of conduct

Anonymous

Which I don't defend.

Rory Alsop

8:40 PM

You can disagree if you like.

Anonymous

But I do defend the right for us to decide the topic of conversation within the bounds of the COC.

Anonymous

If anyone breaks COC, then that's absolutely fine.

Anonymous

But unless you want to waste your time actively moderating the room topic, then I will not support that the room topic be dictated. Nor will I adhere to that. Especially when us regulars very often talk politics without breaking the COC.

forest

@RoryAlsop Since we can't see the transcript, can you tell us who did that?

If I said anything that could be construed that way, I wish to clear my name.

Rory Alsop

Interestingly the topic here is information security. That is defined by the site. We are very relaxed moderators here, which is why the previous version of chat was all but wiped out.

Anonymous

8:42 PM

I don't think we should be punished because of one user.

Rory Alsop

We would like that not to happen again

Anonymous

Well, the chat has evolved differently over time, Rory.

Anonymous

Us regulars have changed that. If the mods don't like it, then they should probably moderate it.

Anonymous

Because to us, its just a normal day.

Anonymous

It has been a normal day for years now, since I joined.

Rory Alsop

8:43 PM

Unfortunately it is starting to go that way again, so yes, we are going to have to moderate it more

forest

@Jis12yearsold. To be fair, we do focus on infosec here most often, but recently politics has appeared due to the specific incidents occurring in Gaza.

Anonymous

Which, I have no problem with.

forest

@RoryAlsop It would be very helpful if we were able to know what is in need of moderation.

Anonymous

As I said, the problem I have is that we all come here every day, and we have changed the nature of the room.

forest

Because at the moment, we're not being told what someone things broke the CoC.

Anonymous

8:44 PM

If that isn't appreciated by the mods, then they need to moderate it.

Rory Alsop

We liked the relaxed but - usually we let folks talk as they wish (various things have been deleted along the way, and the odd muting) but generally nice and easy

Anonymous

Right.

Anonymous

So, because of one user that is changing?

Rory Alsop

@Jis12yearsold. And now you are complaining at being moderated

Anonymous

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Rory Alsop

8:44 PM

It's not just one user - one user helps, but you are all escalating

Anonymous

lol.

Rory Alsop

And that is how it goes

Anonymous

Okay.

Rory Alsop

We see it too often

forest

But we don't know what we are escalating, because we are not being told what it is.

Anonymous

8:45 PM

Well, I won't be coming here anymore.

nobody

@RoryAlsop What I want to know is what was different about this particular conversation. No one ever complained before

Anonymous

I'll see you all whenever :)

nobody

@Jis12yearsold. No don't go away

Anonymous

No, this is absurd.

Rory Alsop

Not correct @nobody - the complaints were just occasional and small

nobody

8:45 PM

We can create a separate chat room

Anonymous

We are in here EVERY DAY.

Anonymous

We have spoken like this since I joined.

nobody

We shitposted every day

Rory Alsop

No you haven't

Anonymous

Without users like us, this chat would be dead.

nobody

8:45 PM

And you know that

Anonymous

So, if the mods don;'t like how the room has gone

Rory Alsop

Surrey that was for J

Not you nobody

Anonymous

they can moderate it. im not moderating myself.

forest

@RoryAlsop It would be nice if you could be more transparent about the issues at hand.

Rory Alsop

Then we moderate J - I agree with you

Anonymous

8:46 PM

if its going to be like that. then the mopds can do their side #

Anonymous

Okay, you moderate. You dictate what we can talk about.

forest

As it is, none of us know what is in need of moderation. Is it support for Palestine? Disagreement with the two-state solution? Disagreement with Israeli nationalism?

nobody

Yeah, I want it to be transparent. What exactly was wrong?

Anonymous

And see how many people dislike it. Because its bonkers.

Anonymous

None of the mods come to this room, very rarely. So the users which do come here, have changed the conversation and how this room works.

Rory Alsop

8:47 PM

Can I ask you ask to read comments from Avi and Journeyman. It's not support for any side. But comments supporting genocide are never going to be acceptable here

Anonymous

SO if mods want to come here and change that, they can. You're within your right. But I can tell you, I think most people will be disappointed with it.

forest

@RoryAlsop Which comments? We are all against genocide.

nobody

@RoryAlsop All the comments I read were against it

Anonymous

And I for one am, and I just won't bother contributing to anything further if we're not appreciated enough that we all get punished because of one user.

Rory Alsop

@Jis12yearsold.i am almost always here - and as I said, happy to let things slide even if off topic, as long a they don't breach CoC

forest

8:48 PM

@Jis12yearsold. I would like it if you stayed, even if only to rant about tech stuff.

@RoryAlsop Again, who breached the CoC? Who supports genocide?

Anonymous

You literally just said you would moderate the topic.

Anonymous

So what is it? You will or you won't?

forest

@Jis12yearsold. I think he's saying he'll moderate if someone is supporting genocide.

Rory Alsop

Honestly, I would agree with forest, J. Tech and security chat is 100% on topic

nobody

@Jis12yearsold. Please stay or Mech will be sad :)

Anonymous

8:49 PM

Okay, now this is really confusing. Of course I am not going to support a breach of the COC.

forest

@Jis12yearsold. I think we're allowed to talk about politics, but @RoryAlsop is under the impression that one of us supports genocide, and doesn't want that?

Rory Alsop

You know I have had to moderate Mech various times - normally he stays within bounds, but likes to push them.

nobody

@RoryAlsop Do you mind if we create a new chatroom and talk about whatever we want over there? (As long as we don't support genocide, which we don't)

Anonymous

But it sounds like that's not what you mean at all. It sounds like what you really mean is that you will moderate the topic so it cannot get there.

Anonymous

@forest Sure. But none of us support genocide.

Anonymous

8:50 PM

If someone does, they're an idiot.

forest

@Jis12yearsold. But @RoryAlsop is claiming one of us does.

Anonymous

ANd they can just fuck off

Anonymous

its really that simple.

Anonymous

Well, then he's misinformed or delusional.

Anonymous

Because Evan is not "one of us"

forest

8:51 PM

@RoryAlsop Are you under the impression that being against Zionism implies being against the right of Jews not to be killed?

Anonymous

I've never seen him here once. So why are we branded with his labels?

nobody

@Jis12yearsold. Even he didn't support genocide

forest

@Jis12yearsold. He didn't support genocide. He's a Jew himself.

Anonymous

Right. So now I'm further confused.

forest

Probably don't throw him under the bus.

Anonymous

8:51 PM

This is why the messages NEED to be public.

Rory Alsop

@Jis12yearsold.No that is not what I said. Please read my words and don't try to identify any subtext. If 90% of the chat is politics then it's not a great place for a security chat - especially as politics is a charged subject. Keeping back from the edge is much easier than the whole chat being canned

Which pretty much happened before

forest

@RoryAlsop It will likely remain politics only during the current situation. It's not like we talk about this constantly no matter what, but during the conflict, it's on a lot of people's minds.

Anonymous

Well, who defines the edge?

forest

But even still, none of us have been made aware of the very serious accusations against one of us.

Anonymous

^

Rory Alsop

8:53 PM

Oh, Evan is well aware of his stance.

forest

@RoryAlsop Is there some hidden history with Evan that we are not aware of?

Anonymous

^ there is. from what journeyman hinted.

Rory Alsop

Yes. A hell of a lot, and that's all I'll say on that

nobody

As J says, Evan isn't relevant to how this chat get dealt with

forest

I know that he's gotten into trouble with SE before, but he never came off to me as someone who would call for extermination of any people. If he did, we all would have reported him immediately.

nobody

8:54 PM

He's not a regular

Rory Alsop

So, chat is public

So despite not being regular, the impact can still be high.

Anonymous

So we all need to suffer, yes?

Anonymous

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

forest

But what did he do here? Unless he said something that I missed, all I could see is that he wants us to support the BDS movement and fight Zionism (using the definition that Zionism is the belief that Israel is supreme and Palestine should be destroyed). Is that calling for genocide?

Anonymous

That's like someone in the street shouts a racial slur and because he's my neighbor I get punished.

Anonymous

8:55 PM

I've never heard anything so ridiculous.

Rory Alsop

In which case you are probably lucky you didn't read all the posts that got deleted

forest

@Jis12yearsold. I don't think we're being punished. You may misunderstand.

Anonymous

But you won't even allow us to read them...

forest

You won't even allow us to read our own.

Anonymous

Which is causing a massive barrier between us and the mods in itself.

nobody

8:56 PM

@RoryAlsop I read like 95%. And the last part it seemed conversation had drifted away from Israel

Rory Alsop

That's fine. You aren't being punished. I am trying to help avoid punishment happening

forest

@RoryAlsop Can you at least tell us what was said (assuming it contains no slurs)? Did he say Israel should not exist and that was taken as meaning Israelis should be killed?

Rory Alsop

@nobody - mostly, yes. But then Evan was stirring up trouble again.

Anonymous

@forest Maybe, which is what I am trying to establish.

Rory Alsop

@forest along those lines, yes

nobody

8:57 PM

Stirring up trouble is different from supporting genocide

Anonymous

I like this place. But I won't partake in something I fundamentally disagree with.

Rory Alsop

A bit more overt than that

@Jis12yearsold. that's fine. Moderation is a thing here to allow chat rooms to exist

forest

@RoryAlsop I personally also believe Israel should not exist (as in, it should be Palestine), but I think it should be done through diplomatic channels, not warfare. Does that mean I support genocide?

Anonymous

Which is why I am trying so hard to understand the moderators intentions for this room going forward. But their answers seem to change with each point I make so it's quite hard to determine what will happen.

Rory Alsop

How?

It's not changed at all

forest

8:58 PM

How what?

Anonymous

So to be clear, the moderators will dictate the topics off this room going forward?

Rory Alsop

How can you not understand. I have said what we need to do as moderators

forest

@Jis12yearsold. No no, that's not it.

Rory Alsop

We always have

Anonymous

Well, I'm sorry but it's not clear to me.

Rory Alsop

8:59 PM

The core topic is the core topic

Anonymous

It seems like you're using a blanket "we will moderate"

forest

@Jis12yearsold. I think Rory is only talking about a specific instance, and saying that infosec should be encouraged, but not that the core topic will be enforced strictly.

Anonymous

That doesn't tell me anything.

nobody

@RoryAlsop Also, you haven't answered my question: Is off-topic only a problem on the site's main chatroom? If I create a chatroom and say its topic is shitposting, will political discussions be allowed?

Anonymous

@forest Hmm, right.

Transcript for