似乎802.11探测请求永远不会包含真正的BSSID,而是包含通配符BSSID(例如ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff)但是我似乎无法找到任何说明这一点的文档。这个Meraki文档说:
"因为探测请求是从移动台发送到的 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff所有AP的目的地层2地址和BSSID 收到它会回复。"
这是否意味着探测请求永远不会包含真正的BSSID?即使它们有时包含SSID?
答案 0 :(得分:1)
我见过很多具有特定BSSID的Probe Request帧。例如,在无线分布系统(WDS)中,一个AP将探测具有特定BSSID的另一个AP,因为它们具有相同的SSID:
Frame 2022: 310 bytes on wire (2480 bits), 310 bytes captured (2480 bits)
Radiotap Header v0, Length 25
802.11 radio information
IEEE 802.11 Probe Request, Flags: opmP..FT.
Type/Subtype: Probe Request (0x0004)
Frame Control Field: 0x41f3
.... ..01 = Version: 1
.... 00.. = Type: Management frame (0)
0100 .... = Subtype: 4
Flags: 0xf3
.... ..11 = DS status: WDS (AP to AP) or Mesh (MP to MP) Frame (To DS: 1 From DS: 1) (0x3)
.... .0.. = More Fragments: This is the last fragment
.... 0... = Retry: Frame is not being retransmitted
...1 .... = PWR MGT: STA will go to sleep
..1. .... = More Data: Data is buffered for STA at AP
.1.. .... = Protected flag: Data is protected
1... .... = Order flag: Strictly ordered
.101 1101 0001 0110 = Duration: 23830 microseconds
Receiver address: 80:1d:30:a5:81:39 (80:1d:30:a5:81:39)
Destination address: 80:1d:30:a5:81:39 (80:1d:30:a5:81:39)
Transmitter address: 4b:3b:67:a4:4d:fe (4b:3b:67:a4:4d:fe)
Source address: 4b:3b:67:a4:4d:fe (4b:3b:67:a4:4d:fe)
BSS Id: ef:e1:f9:51:09:e6 (ef:e1:f9:51:09:e6)
.... .... .... 0010 = Fragment number: 2
0100 1110 1001 .... = Sequence number: 1257
Frame check sequence: 0x853d68c9 [incorrect, should be 0x7089dc98]
[FCS Status: Bad]
HT Control (+HTC): 0x8ab91f91
WEP parameters
Data (245 bytes)
假设您的PC加入了一个名为Starbucks的开放式无线网络,当您在家时,如果某个Rogue AP具有相同的名称,那么您的PC将连接到AP。这就是为什么有些客户实际上会允许您选择BSSID。在ad-hoc网络中,有许多具有特定BSSID的探测请求。
答案 1 :(得分:0)
我找不到任何肯定说探测请求永远不会包含真正的BSSID的东西。然而,在我在网上找到的所有例子中,它被设置为ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff。以下是blog of a wireless network expert:
中的另一个案例下面显示了客户端发送的探测请求帧的详细信息 是一个子类型值为4的管理类型。如您所见,客户端是 发送6Mbps(客户端支持的最低速率)。地址字段 设置如下
地址字段-1 =接收方地址(=目标地址)ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
地址字段-2 =发送器地址(=源地址)84:38:38:58:63:D5
地址字段-3 = BSSID ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
此外,我做了自己的测试,从未找到真正的BSSID广播。因此,虽然我不会说它从未发生过,但它确实很少发生,因此值得考虑它永远不可用。