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

Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

ptere.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

#21

Post by universa1 »

fluoridation wrote: post #19
sourcecodeplz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was also a time where seconds after installing Windows XP and plugging the Ethernet, your PC would get infected. No browsing, no nothing.

I don't really believe that was ever a common occurrence. It wouldn't take mere seconds to detect a new device connected to the Internet. I can see it happening in a small LAN where one of the other computers is already infected, though.

Nah, it actually was. There was a point in time where windows was vulnerable without patches, but the limited ipv4 space was available with "bot-nets"/infected PCs. It probably was something Like minutes, so if you were quick between starting up and downloading the patch...

Re: Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

#22

Post by Nextgrid »

fluoridation wrote: post #19
sourcecodeplz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was also a time where seconds after installing Windows XP and plugging the Ethernet, your PC would get infected. No browsing, no nothing.

I don't really believe that was ever a common occurrence. It wouldn't take mere seconds to detect a new device connected to the Internet. I can see it happening in a small LAN where one of the other computers is already infected, though.

> It wouldn't take mere seconds to detect a new device connected to the Internet

You don't need to detect. You just spam exploit packets to every possible IP address and hope some of them hit a vulnerable target.

How do you get the necessary bandwidth to do that? Well you make your malware do the spamming, so as the network of compromised hosts grows, so does the attack traffic, until everyone is spammed with attack packets every few seconds.

The same is happening nowadays, just open tcpdump on a WAN interface and watch the nastiness roll in - you'll see SSH connection attempts (trying to bruteforce credentials), HTTP requests (typically used to exploit shitty PHP CMSes), etc.

Re: Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

#23

Post by fluoridation »

universa1 wrote: post #21
fluoridation wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really believe that was ever a common occurrence. It wouldn't take mere seconds to detect a new device connected to the Internet. I can see it happening in a small LAN where one of the other computers is already infected, though.

Nah, it actually was. There was a point in time where windows was vulnerable without patches, but the limited ipv4 space was available with "bot-nets"/infected PCs. It probably was something Like minutes, so if you were quick between starting up and downloading the patch...

Minutes, I can believe.

Re: Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

#24

Post by unrealhoang »

fluoridation wrote: post #20
unrealhoang wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My very simple solution is to use a smart plug and config the mainboard to wake on power.

But then you're draining your RTC battery. I used to have to replace my mother's PC's battery every 1-2 years before I understood she was leaving it unplugged for most of the day and told her to just leave it plugged in all the time.

ah if you shutdown your machine by OS, it stays off, and to remotely turn the PC on, I have to turn the smart plug off and on. So no problem with leaving the PC unplugged all the time.

Re: Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

#26

Post by bluedino »

neilv wrote: post #3

An alternative with simpler networking is to to rig up a little Web server on your home OpenWrt router, listening on the WAN interface. When the URL is requested (with authentication of some kind), it runs `etherwake` with the hardcoded MAC address and the hardcoded interface (e.g., `eth1.1`). Then your UI to wake up your machine, from anywhere in the world, would be to access that URL via a Web browser or `curl` scr…

I did something like this for an old boss, long long ago.

They would go to their vacation home each year, and a couple days beforehand I would boot their computers up and install updates and sync files etc. That way they could start working as soon as they arrived. Dyndns and a tiny web server. Something something.net/mag1cpack3t

Re: Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

#27

Post by myself248 »

MayeulC wrote: post #14
actionfromafar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very clever! I suppose the modern take would be one of the MCUs with Wifi (ESP8266-like) wire that to the power signal on a PC.

interesting, one could probably power it from the motherboard itself pretty easily, too! One of the pins of the power switch is probably 5V (though possibly high impedance if a pull-up is used, so not much power). But I think I'll rather look into one of these Pi-based "ilo" with HDMI in and USB gadget support to get remote access to the BIOS as well. It may also be useful for remotely debugging computers of family m…

Yes, it is powered from the motherboard. The mobo's WOL header, if present, contains +5VSB, wake, and ground. It's intended to power the NIC since the motherboard's slots aren't powered when the machine is off. (At least, ISA slots weren't, and PCI added standby power in a later revision.)

Or, you can just tap the +5VSB line from the ATX wiring directly. It's the same as on the WOL header. USB-equipped boards tend to power the USB ports from standby too, to support USB wake events, whether from keyboards, modems, or whatever. Plenty of options.

If I were doing it again, yeah, I might use an ESP chip. That would give me power, reset, and serial, and I can always enable a serial console in my OS. I wonder if the ESP32's camera peripheral could read HDMI...

Re: Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

#28

Post by addaon »

fluoridation wrote: post #20
unrealhoang wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My very simple solution is to use a smart plug and config the mainboard to wake on power.

But then you're draining your RTC battery. I used to have to replace my mother's PC's battery every 1-2 years before I understood she was leaving it unplugged for most of the day and told her to just leave it plugged in all the time.

A modern RTC should draw such low power from the battery (tens of nanoamps to maybe a microamp) that the life of a primary battery will basically match the shelf life. Indeed, many coin cells actually have a longer life with a small amount of current draw than in a fully open circuit (in a wrapper on a shelf).

Re: Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

#29

Post by fluoridation »

addaon wrote: post #28
fluoridation wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you're draining your RTC battery. I used to have to replace my mother's PC's battery every 1-2 years before I understood she was leaving it unplugged for most of the day and told her to just leave it plugged in all the time.

A modern RTC should draw such low power from the battery (tens of nanoamps to maybe a microamp) that the life of a primary battery will basically match the shelf life. Indeed, many coin cells actually have a longer life with a small amount of current draw than in a fully open circuit (in a wrapper on a shelf).

How modern are we talking about? This was a Haswell system, I believe.

All I know is that in 20+ years of maintaining computers, hers was the only one I ever replaced a battery for, and since she's left it plugged in 24-7 I haven't replaced it again.

Re: Using Wake on LAN (WOL) Across the Internet (2010)

#30

Post by addaon »

fluoridation wrote: post #29
addaon wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A modern RTC should draw such low power from the battery (tens of nanoamps to maybe a microamp) that the life of a primary battery will basically match the shelf life. Indeed, many coin cells actually have a longer life with a small amount of current draw than in a fully open circuit (in a wrapper on a shelf).

How modern are we talking about? This was a Haswell system, I believe. All I know is that in 20+ years of maintaining computers, hers was the only one I ever replaced a battery for, and since she's left it plugged in 24-7 I haven't replaced it again.

I can't speak for < 2010 or so, but even then 500 nA was common, and half that wasn't rare. I'd expect that we crossed 1 µA around 2003 - 2005, as a very rough guess. But that doesn't mean that every implementation is good, of course; totally possible for a board to do something stupid like have pull-up resistor sinking current continuously on that rail.
Post reply on HN