Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows

I searched far and wide for a MAC address and hostname automatic randomizer
to improve Internet privacy & wireless security on my Windows PC.

The MAC & hostname randomizer I found seems to randomize the Windows PC
hostname but it doesn't seem to change the MAC address even when I tell it
to. Yet, MacMakeUp and SimpleMAC have no problems changing the MAC address.

But I'm not looking for a manual MAC/Hostname randomizer. I'm searching for
an automatic randomizer that changes the hostname and MAC address with each
reboot.

Does anyone here have a better MAC address & Windows hostname randomizer
freeware than MadMacs (which was the best I could find on my own).
http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=s...cs-mac-spoofer

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:38:05 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> your MAC address can't be seen remotely, and your hostname
> won't be seen either unless you "make it so"

Hello John,
Are you sure the MAC & hostname of the PC aren't available remotely?

I read that both MAC & hostname were seen in this court case, for example.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/cult...-judgement.ars

Apparently DNS logs proved "the MAC address for both the cable modem and
the device connected to the cable modem were unchanged for the entire
period in question" and the defendant lost the case (it's being appealed).

Even without a court case, isn't the hostname and current user often given
out to malicious web pages when certain scripting languages are enabled in
your browser in the first place?

On Dec 22, 5:38*pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:10:28 -0800, "jhai...@hotmail.com"
> <jhai...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <9dG3l.8638$W06.4...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>:
>
> > I searched far and wide for a MAC address and hostname
> > automatic randomizer
> > to improve Internet privacy & wireless security on my Windows
> > PC.
>
> That's actually a waste of time -- your MAC address can't be seen
> remotely, and your hostname won't be seen either unless you "make it so"
> -- only your public IP address will be seen.

Yet another unsupported claim from a guy who love to send crap to
usenet.

MAC can be seen on his wireless network, and his hostname too. Further
more, his ISP can correlate MAC and hostname to a PC, if not
randomized. ISP can correlate MAC and hostname to visited addresses.
All though it's true that MAC does not travel the net, it does indeed
travel between ISP and custommer. Layer 3 routers and bridges are
costly and rarly used as an endpoint because it's not necessary. It
doesn't matter if he run a router or a clean layer 2 bridge. Where
ARPs and RARPs are going is by the protocol defined as a choice.

> You can verify that at
> privacy checking sites. *This is yet another security myth -- I should
> add it to the myth section of the wiki below. *You're better off
> investing your time and energy on the security things that do work.

There are alots of confusion around this question and to whom it apply
as a security risk, but calling it a myth is just as misleading as
calling it relevant to everybody.

If he connects to wireless networks, and doesn't want others to
correlate his different sessions to each other, then he should
randomize both his MAC and his Host name. This is necessary, but not
suficient. He should also make sure that his computer don't give away
it's indentity by network fingerprint nor content in shared folders
and traffic generated by installed programs. Not even this is good
enough. He should also try to make his computer appear as the others
on the same network so that it doesn't stand out. This means he should
have shared files open if most ppl on that net, and he should use MAC
ranges in the same company region as the most used adapters on the
same network. If there is alots of *nix boxes on the net, he might
need to install a new network core so that his machine doesn't stand
out from the crowd as the only windoz. It's not easy to be a ghost on
the net, but it's possible. On top of all he should use a anonymizer
network so that his ISP and local network can only see his connection
to the anonymizer network. But above all things he should do, is to
lock his ears from clueless crackpots like you who got more love for
writing than for right information and insight.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:46:26 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> The only thing the remote site can see that might compromise your
> privacy is your IP address, which could be used to identify you through
> your ISP (no matter what you do to your MAC address and hostname). The
> only way to prevent that is to use an anonymous surfing service, ideally
> one that's outside of USA legal jurisdiction. You can find such
> services easily with Google.

That's an interesting POV. Got one you would like to recommend?
--
Meet Ari!
http://tr.im/1fa3

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:03:38 -0800 (PST), Chrisjoy wrote:

> On Dec 22, 5:38*pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:10:28 -0800, "jhai...@hotmail.com"
>> <jhai...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <9dG3l.8638$W06.4...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>:
>>
>>> I searched far and wide for a MAC address and hostname
>>> automatic randomizer
>>> to improve Internet privacy & wireless security on my Windows
>>> PC.
>>
>> That's actually a waste of time -- your MAC address can't be seen
>> remotely, and your hostname won't be seen either unless you "make it so"
>> -- only your public IP address will be seen.
>
> Yet another unsupported claim from a guy who love to send crap to
> usenet.
>
> MAC can be seen on his wireless network, and his hostname too. Further
> more, his ISP can correlate MAC and hostname to a PC, if not
> randomized. ISP can correlate MAC and hostname to visited addresses.
> All though it's true that MAC does not travel the net, it does indeed
> travel between ISP and custommer. Layer 3 routers and bridges are
> costly and rarly used as an endpoint because it's not necessary. It
> doesn't matter if he run a router or a clean layer 2 bridge. Where
> ARPs and RARPs are going is by the protocol defined as a choice.
>
>> You can verify that at
>> privacy checking sites. *This is yet another security myth -- I should
>> add it to the myth section of the wiki below. *You're better off
>> investing your time and energy on the security things that do work.
>
> There are alots of confusion around this question and to whom it apply
> as a security risk, but calling it a myth is just as misleading as
> calling it relevant to everybody.
>
> If he connects to wireless networks, and doesn't want others to
> correlate his different sessions to each other, then he should
> randomize both his MAC and his Host name. This is necessary, but not
> suficient. He should also make sure that his computer don't give away
> it's indentity by network fingerprint nor content in shared folders
> and traffic generated by installed programs. Not even this is good
> enough. He should also try to make his computer appear as the others
> on the same network so that it doesn't stand out. This means he should
> have shared files open if most ppl on that net, and he should use MAC
> ranges in the same company region as the most used adapters on the
> same network. If there is alots of *nix boxes on the net, he might
> need to install a new network core so that his machine doesn't stand
> out from the crowd as the only windoz. It's not easy to be a ghost on
> the net, but it's possible. On top of all he should use a anonymizer
> network so that his ISP and local network can only see his connection
> to the anonymizer network. But above all things he should do, is to
> lock his ears from clueless crackpots like you who got more love for
> writing than for right information and insight.

LOL! Well spoken.
--
Meet Ari!
http://tr.im/1fa3

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:03:38 -0800 (PST), Googler Chrisjoy wrote:

> On Dec 22, 5:38*pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:10:28 -0800, "jhai...@hotmail.com"
>> <jhai...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <9dG3l.8638$W06.4...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>:
>>
>>> I searched far and wide for a MAC address and hostname
>>> automatic randomizer
>>> to improve Internet privacy & wireless security on my Windows
>>> PC.
>>
>> That's actually a waste of time -- your MAC address can't be seen
>> remotely, and your hostname won't be seen either unless you "make it so"
>> -- only your public IP address will be seen.
>
> Yet another unsupported claim from a guy who love to send crap to
> usenet.
>
> MAC can be seen on his wireless network, and his hostname too. Further
> more, his ISP can correlate MAC and hostname to a PC, if not
> randomized. ISP can correlate MAC and hostname to visited addresses.
> All though it's true that MAC does not travel the net, it does indeed
> travel between ISP and custommer. Layer 3 routers and bridges are
> costly and rarly used as an endpoint because it's not necessary. It
> doesn't matter if he run a router or a clean layer 2 bridge. Where
> ARPs and RARPs are going is by the protocol defined as a choice.
>
>> You can verify that at
>> privacy checking sites. *This is yet another security myth -- I should
>> add it to the myth section of the wiki below. *You're better off
>> investing your time and energy on the security things that do work.
>
> There are alots of confusion around this question and to whom it apply
> as a security risk, but calling it a myth is just as misleading as
> calling it relevant to everybody.
>
> If he connects to wireless networks, and doesn't want others to
> correlate his different sessions to each other, then he should
> randomize both his MAC and his Host name. This is necessary, but not
> suficient. He should also make sure that his computer don't give away
> it's indentity by network fingerprint nor content in shared folders
> and traffic generated by installed programs. Not even this is good
> enough. He should also try to make his computer appear as the others
> on the same network so that it doesn't stand out. This means he should
> have shared files open if most ppl on that net, and he should use MAC
> ranges in the same company region as the most used adapters on the
> same network. If there is alots of *nix boxes on the net, he might
> need to install a new network core so that his machine doesn't stand
> out from the crowd as the only windoz. It's not easy to be a ghost on
> the net, but it's possible. On top of all he should use a anonymizer
> network so that his ISP and local network can only see his connection
> to the anonymizer network. But above all things he should do, is to
> lock his ears from clueless crackpots like you who got more love for
> writing than for right information and insight.

Class

--
You gotta fight, for your right, to party...
Destroy the Triumvirate...
The best of the best in Freeware
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:40:46 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:23:50 -0500, Ari
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> <giolvm$5ke$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:46:26 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing the remote site can see that might compromise your
>>> privacy is your IP address, which could be used to identify you through
>>> your ISP (no matter what you do to your MAC address and hostname). The
>>> only way to prevent that is to use an anonymous surfing service, ideally
>>> one that's outside of USA legal jurisdiction. You can find such
>>> services easily with Google.
>>
>>That's an interesting POV. Got one you would like to recommend?
>
> * Anonymizer <http://www.anonymizer.com/>
> * GoTrusted <http://www.gotrusted.com/>
> Both are solid, and while in the USA, that shouldn't be a concern unless
> you're going to attract the attention of law enforcement.

How do you know they are solid?
--
Meet Ari!
http://tr.im/1fa3

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:40:46 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:23:50 -0500, Ari
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> <giolvm$5ke$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:46:26 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing the remote site can see that might compromise your
>>> privacy is your IP address, which could be used to identify you through
>>> your ISP (no matter what you do to your MAC address and hostname). The
>>> only way to prevent that is to use an anonymous surfing service, ideally
>>> one that's outside of USA legal jurisdiction. You can find such
>>> services easily with Google.
>>
>>That's an interesting POV. Got one you would like to recommend?
>
> * Anonymizer <http://www.anonymizer.com/>
> * GoTrusted <http://www.gotrusted.com/>
> Both are solid, and while in the USA, that shouldn't be a concern unless
> you're going to attract the attention of law enforcement.
>
> For a technical overview, see
> <https://www.anonymousspeech.com/anonymous_surfing.aspx>
>
> Other options:
> <(www.idzap.com>
> <http://anonymous-surfing-reviews.qarchive.org/>

With Tor so easily, freely configured for web browsing, why in the world
would you hand off your anonymity to a bunch of goofs trying to make a
buck?
--
Meet Ari!
http://tr.im/1fa3

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:42:00 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:03:38 -0800 (PST), Chrisjoy
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> <1fa383e5-4ba7-4ef5-adb0-(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>... But above all things he should do, is to
>>lock his ears from clueless crackpots like you who got more love for
>>writing than for right information and insight.
>
> With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time.
> And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word.

Dontcha just luv it when someone is about ready to get his ass reamed,
he claims "VICTORY" and scoots off into the Usenet sunset?

Hmmm, who else does that.

Head Of COKE, freeware scientist, Bear Bottoms?
--
Meet Ari!
http://tr.im/1fa3

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:40:46 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> * Anonymizer <http://www.anonymizer.com/>

*No Log Files*
For the security of our subscribers, AnonymousSpeech does not backup any
log files. We store logfiles for a maximum of five days. This protects
our servers from being compromised by abusive users.

So they logfile, but they don't keep a BUP (idiots, great system
ownership there), but they have no log files...but they do.

Got it, where can I signup? lol
--
Meet Ari!
http://tr.im/1fa3