> if you just want to inject traffic there a other way call nemesis . > http://www.packetfactory.net/Projects/nemesis/ > > the problem is that they claim not to support mac os x during the > compilation (but they claim to support it in there web site ...). > > I was not able to succesfully compile it (libnet was ok but not > nemesis) , > if you succed , please let me know. this wont help you with mac authentication. nemsis expects a working connection, and this connection has to be authenticated using a faked mac address. so it wont get you anywhere. what we need is an opensource airport driver. >>>>> I'm wondering if it would be possible to add MAC Spoofing >>>>> capability >>>>> to KisMAC? Or if anyone knows of any way to spoof the MAC on a OS X >>>>> system. I'm interested in using it for some wireless testing. >> >> actually macjack has this capability. but it does not help you, since >> there is no way to open a connection. >> there is no way to do this on a airport card. >> what can you do: >> - patch the wireless driver to support mac spoofing. i always >> wanted to do that. >> - upgrade the firmware of a prism2 card and burn another MAC >> address into it. >> >> what probably wont work: >> - patching your kernel. ( because the airport driver is not part >> of >> the kernel and not opensource either ) >> >> ==> if you have an airport card you are screwed. if you have a prism >> card, there is some work todo. >> >>>> In order to spoof a MAC address on the mac you need to rebuild your >>>> kernel, but DHCP is not supported, so it is pretty much rendered >>>> useless. Also, your airport card has its own MAC, so I'm not sure >>>> that >>>> this would be of any use for wardriving. >>> >>> This is of great use for accessing BaseStations that are using MAC >>> Address-based authentication. Awesome part is with a wireless >>> sniffer >>> like KisMAC you can also see the MAC addresses of users on that >>> basestation to clone, so you know where to start. And if DHCP is not >>> available... well then shit, it's not like every basestation happens >>> to >>> work on 192.168, or 10.10, and it's not like all of their basestation >>> IP >>> addresses aren't the base-ip of that range (192.168.0.1 / 10.0.0.1) >>> that >>> would be ludicrous, lol. Go wardriving a bit man, you'll see. =) >>> When >>> you come to a odd basestation you can't associate with properly, and >>> it >>> doesn't require a password, 4 times out of 5 it is using MAC >>> authentication. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > "Doigt de pied ... " > > >