Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Nintendo Switch Switch

blog.cynthia.re

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: The Nintendo Switch Switch

#41

Post by milankragujevic »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #39
jlgaddis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an airgapped network for security classes

Wait till he finds out that people frequently use multiple VMs with their own MAC addresses on a given physical box. Especially in the kind of lab where people are working on security projects. Edit: or that security includes availability in addition to confidentiality and integrity

Eh, at work I either have to assign them pre-approved MAC addresses or get approval for VM MACs, or just use pretend my PC is a router and all VMs get a 100...* IP (10...* is used for the network already).

Re: The Nintendo Switch Switch

#42

Post by baroffoos »

saagarjha wrote: post #22
rjeli wrote: post #21

Woah, didn’t realize you could install Linux on the switch now. Got me thinking about the uses for a portable tx2 tablet...

Only on certain Switch devices.

Its quite a large number of them but not any of the ones you can get from a store anymore. There are loads of them floating around ebay second hand. Just look up the serial number checker and you should have no issues snagging one.

Re: The Nintendo Switch Switch

#43

Post by thaumasiotes »

tinco wrote: post #23
walrus01 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your college has any proper security on access ports, they'll be limited to one MAC address per physical port, and hopefully a decent 802.1x setup

Why would 1 mac per port be proper security? Seems needlessly restrictive and ineffective to me.

NAT for IPs may be everywhere, but NAT for MAC addresses is inconceivable.

Re: The Nintendo Switch Switch

#44

Post by singlow »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #9
ollien wrote: post #2

At my college, we have an airgapped network for security classes, and when assignments are due, we often run out of ethernet cables. I had just mentioned I would bring a switch with me the next day and people were confused why I'd be goofing off with a Switch so close to the deadline. Now we can avoid that kind of confusion! :)

> when assignments are due, we often run out of ethernet cables. I had just mentioned I would bring a switch with me the next day As I understand it, a switch will solve a shortage of ethernet ports, but will make the cable problem worse by requiring one extra cable. What's the purpose of the switch here?

Running out of cables may actually mean running out of ports. Spare cables with no place to plug in are useless.

Re: The Nintendo Switch Switch

#45

Post by rovr138 »

milankragujevic wrote: post #41
Godel_unicode wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait till he finds out that people frequently use multiple VMs with their own MAC addresses on a given physical box. Especially in the kind of lab where people are working on security projects. Edit: or that security includes availability in addition to confidentiality and integrity

Eh, at work I either have to assign them pre-approved MAC addresses or get approval for VM MACs, or just use pretend my PC is a router and all VMs get a 100. . .* IP (10. . .* is used for the network already).

You can usually do NAT and Bridged.

NAT won’t have issues. Bridged will.

Regarding the IP range, on most most hypervisors that’s configurable.

Re: The Nintendo Switch Switch

#46

Post by Godel_unicode »

milankragujevic wrote: post #41
Godel_unicode wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait till he finds out that people frequently use multiple VMs with their own MAC addresses on a given physical box. Especially in the kind of lab where people are working on security projects. Edit: or that security includes availability in addition to confidentiality and integrity

Eh, at work I either have to assign them pre-approved MAC addresses or get approval for VM MACs, or just use pretend my PC is a router and all VMs get a 100. . .* IP (10. . .* is used for the network already).

Why rfc6598 space instead of one of the other 1918 ranges? I would expect pretending to be a cgn on an internal network to blow up in spectacular fashion.

Re: The Nintendo Switch Switch

#47

Post by Wowfunhappy »

Lammy wrote: post #37
rjeli wrote: post #21

Woah, didn’t realize you could install Linux on the switch now. Got me thinking about the uses for a portable tx2 tablet...

There is a hardware vulnerability in the first ~18 months of Switch systems produced. It’s a USB boot mode (like DFU mode in iPhones) from the underlying Tegra chipset and is triggered by pressing the Tegra “Home” button (not the Switch Home button!), one of the Volume buttons, and Power while injecting the software you want to boot over USB. That button is exposed as one of the pins (#9, iirc?) of the right-side Joy…

> Your system will get banned from Nintendo online services if you run any Switch-mode homebrew

What you can do is set up a separate Homebrew-enabled partition on your SD card without any wifi networks to connect to, and keep your normal, untouched partition for normal use.

For similar reasons, installing Android/Linux is safe.

Re: The Nintendo Switch Switch

#48

Post by milankragujevic »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #46
milankragujevic wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, at work I either have to assign them pre-approved MAC addresses or get approval for VM MACs, or just use pretend my PC is a router and all VMs get a 100. . .* IP (10. . .* is used for the network already).

Why rfc6598 space instead of one of the other 1918 ranges? I would expect pretending to be a cgn on an internal network to blow up in spectacular fashion.

Erm, the VMs see CGNAT, but it doesn't mean anything in my case, but still let's me access other PCs on the company Intranet on 10.x.x.x

Re: The Nintendo Switch Switch

#50

Post by walrus01 »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #46
milankragujevic wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, at work I either have to assign them pre-approved MAC addresses or get approval for VM MACs, or just use pretend my PC is a router and all VMs get a 100. . .* IP (10. . .* is used for the network already).

Why rfc6598 space instead of one of the other 1918 ranges? I would expect pretending to be a cgn on an internal network to blow up in spectacular fashion.

I think he means doing NAT on his PC itself (such as is the default network configuration on virtualbox), where it doesn't ordinarily matter what private IP range the VMs are located in. VMs get DHCP leases and a default gateway from the host. The host presents only one IP address and MAC to what it's physically plugged into.
Post reply on HN