Related
hello xda,
my wife has a htc hd2 phone from T-mobile. She turned off the 3g and
i gave her a static ip so she could connect to our wifi router at home.
so far so good. now she wants to connect to the wifi at her work,
she could just change the settings manually, but that is kind of bothersome
everytime. i guess what she needs is a procedure to setup 2 different profiles
or identities for her wifi connections--one HOME-one WORK. i have been
googling for some time, the toggle apps available seem not to fit her needs.
any advice?
thanks
craig
why have you not turned on the hdcp in your router at home and let it give her an ip dymanic ?
what??
hello,
i need a static ip becasue i host websites off a server and it was advised
many years ago that i establish a static ip's for all my machines in the house.
any help?
zpupster
You should be able to have certain things static in your house, while using a specific range that doesn't interfere with your other devices as dynamic...at least that's how my setup works.
gsvnet said:
You should be able to have certain things static in your house, while using a specific range that doesn't interfere with your other devices as dynamic...at least that's how my setup works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think this best answers your problem.
There are cases that you need a static and a dynamic setup in your house.
And I think by doing that, there will be less problem with regards to changing the settings of your wife's phone connection.
_____________________
yeah having a computer with a static ip don't interfere with the rest of the devices using the dhcp
Honestly I have no idea why this is happening on my android 4.0+ devices. I will get stuck on obtaining IP address connecting to certain networks and the only thing that worked for my home network is static IP. But for instances when I don't have access to the router to know what the static IP should be, is there a way to get this working? This happened on my phone as well. I was at a local cafe which had wifi and before I upgraded my samsung galaxy s2 to ICS, I could connect to their wifi no problem, now it has the same issue, and so does my Nexus 7. I don't know what to enter for static IP, I entered some random IP, it connected but internet still didn't work. Why is this problem plaguing ICS onward, and does anyone have a workaround when static IP is not an option?
This is definitely not a universal problem (I've never heard of it before). Are you running stock roms? If not, then do you have these problems with stock roms?
C2Q
Why are you posting this to multiple threads?
There is no "proper way" to use a static IP for a router that is setup for DHCP only. For routers that use both, many times the static IP's are reserved for specific devices.
Sent from my Nexus 7
Because I didn't notice the other thread before I posted this one. Anyway then why is this obtaining IP address loop a problem on ICS? As I said, my phone on GB would manage to connect/obtain an IP address just fine before I upgraded to ICS. This happened with my home router and other areas as well. The solution that worked for me at home was to assign a random static IP within my routers IP range. But if I don't know the gateway IP this won't work. So what gives? I'm kind of confused what you mean by routers set up for DCHP only. If I use static or DCHP options on the android device to connect, they will both work (this was before ICS).
I ran into similar issues with my nexus 7 and my work open wifi. It needs you to connect to a web login page where you accept a use policy before you can surf. My nexus would connect but never redirect to that login page.
The issue was resolved by using static IP instead of DHCP and also by changing the DNS values to DNS1 8.8.8.8 and DNS2 4.4.8.8
Changing those settings lets me finally use my work wifi. My phone also has the same issue (its an ICS phone, whilst the nexus is jelly bean) but is not resolved with this change.
Sunburn74 said:
the issue was resolved by using static IP instead of DHCP and also by changing the DNS values to DNS1 8.8.8.8 and DNS2 4.4.8.8
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure that is not 8.8.4.4 ?
Thanks for posting this question. I have exactly the same problem with my Samsung S3 (ICS) and Nexus 7 (Jellybean). My old Samsung S2 (Gingerbread) worked fine.
I am trying to connect to a hotel open network. When I try I get the looping "Obtaining IP..." message. I have a strong network signal.
What gives? How come earlier versions of Android worked but later ones don't?
As the OP stated, the static option works insofar as I can then connect to the network but the made up static IP numbers do not actually let me download (or upload) data. As the OP wrote, you need to know some valid values for the static IP setting.
Does anyone have a solution for this (apart from downgrading to Gingerbread)?
Ive always had this issue but my home router has dhcp off. A majority of routers start with 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.1.2 so its not hard to work it out.
BT routers always start with 192.168.1.254 so there's another option dunno why my devices do it but im used to it. My Wifes Xoom 2 and wildfire S are stock and do not have the issues my rooted ones do but i have just put it down to coincidence
First off. Is your modem in service? Do other devices connect? Have your restarted your tab? Does it connect to other networks? Meaning going to another WiFi hotspot If you can answer yes to all of these questions we move on....
What modem/router are you connecting to?
What type of WiFi encryption are you using? Wep-open, WPA, wpa2-psk
On the tab does it fail to obtain the IP address? Meaning it says "remembered"?
Not going to lie more the 3/4ths of the time you have the wrong WIFI PASSWORD. CHECK IT AGAIN usually its on the modem/router or if you have no clue here is a hint: on windows vista and windows 7 under control panel>network and sharing center>manage WiFi networks if your right click on the network name such as "Ilovepancakes"and go to properties it will have a security tab that you can click on and show password.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium HD app
bonesy said:
Ive always had this issue but my home router has dhcp off. A majority of routers start with 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.1.2 so its not hard to work it out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that I should try these numbers to see if they work? You need a number of values to set up static IP addressing to work.
Did you dirty-flash your Nexus? A while back my Gnex wifi connections would take longer to complete the handshake. I did a factory reset/fresh install & it has been much faster.
strongergravity said:
Did you dirty-flash your Nexus?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My Nexus (and GS3) is completely stock (I have only added a launcher).
This problem seems to be caused by older routers, which don't seem to like something about newer versions of Android.
I'm not sure if it's something Google can fix, but the combination of old router and new Android seems to make logging onto wi-fi networks a problem.
Bump.
Ive been struggling with this problem for a week now since getting a transformer infinity. My s3 gets stuck when I try to connect to it. The tab cycles through connecting, obtain a valid address and saved.
I bought a new 32gb nexus yday and had this issue. I entered advanced settings, changed dhcp to static. Changed IP addy to 192.168.1.1 and it worked fine. Only had to do it once. After that it connected to every network fine without changing settings again.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Warrior1975 said:
I bought a new 32gb nexus yday and had this issue. I entered advanced settings, changed dhcp to static. Changed IP addy to 192.168.1.1 and it worked fine. Only had to do it once. After that it connected to every network fine without changing settings again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This worked for me also (Infuse 4G on JB), but it seems like this is only a problem on WiFi AP's that have marginal signal strength, even though they appear to have full bars. I personally have never have seen this issue on a network that was performing properly.
Same here!
Same thing is happening to me! Im using he htc desire c running ics.. my phone detects the wifi network, shows that it has excellent strength, but it gets stuck at "Obtaining IP Address"! My friend and I both bought the same model a couple of weeks earlier and till now neither of us have been able to connect to a wifi network! Please Help!!!
its a DHCP bug
This is probably not a problem with your network configuration unless it works everywhere else; im having the same problem as well as other people i know and its definitely a bug with DHCP, so the only way to work around this is by using a static ip as far as i know
bobbyelliott said:
I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that I should try these numbers to see if they work? You need a number of values to set up static IP addressing to work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What he's saying is that most routers will begin assigning addresses starting with 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.2.1 for itself (you can access the router configuration page by typing in this address into a web browser), and then increment upwards afterwards. If you knew that the router started its DHCP addressing with 192.168.1.1, for example, you could try 192.168.1.2, and so on and soforth.
If you did a "dirty" upgrade, I'd recommend doing a factory wipe (after an appropriate backup-- there are some good apps out there that can handle this). In-place OS upgrades have a bad habit of being finicky. Android is also generally less tolerant of network "misconfigurations" than, say, Windows, OS X, or iOS. Many networks that use captive portals (your standard coffeeshop Wi-Fi) deliberately use an altered network setup to support their access policies, such as a captive portal.
However, with the exception of corporate/enterprise networks (which may require fine-tuning because of increased security), you really shouldn't be messing around with this if you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of how networking works. That's not meant to be insulting, but when people plug in random values and find it doesn't work, it tends to lead to more frustration than utility.
(fyi: The reason you can "connect" by tossing in a random set of octets your your IP and DNS is because you've properly authenticated against your router, but you'll never be able to receive data unless your router's DHCP lease lines up with your self-assigned IP, because the router never handed that address out to you. It's the digital equivalent of building a mailbox in front of your house without registering with the post office, and wondering why you never get mail).
My WiFi keeps disconnecting at random times i am running on a router/modem Belkin and comcast is my provider if that means anything,my xoom,netflix and ps3 are good.It's my old phones like droidx,samsung fasinate and bionic.All three phones are out of service but worked before when they were disconnected from verizion,it started this week.
Under wifi it will say scanning then obtaining ip address then connected to WLAN,then repeat all over again.
This is no big deal,and I have some time so I threw this question out there to try and figure it out.
THANKS
P.S.... I tried changing channels in router page,unplugged router and went back to my old settings.
Did you check the screen off settings? It's possible your MAC address of your phone has become blacklisted automatically by your router as well. Just a couple things to check.
can you tell me where i can find the mack address.thanks
The MAC Address can be found on Android phones in :
Parameters > About phone > Status
Right below your IP Address, you should have your MAC address.
.
this wont fix your router, but make sure your gateway from comcast has been bridged or else you're running a double NAT and will have sporadic DNS error when the comcast DNS servers have to outsource the lookup to other servers...
Have you set any static IPs? If so, make sure they don't fall in your DHCP range as this can cause IP conflicts. Also make sure you're close enough to your router to get a good signal.
It's also possible that you just have a crappy router. ISPs are notorious for giving out garbage.
ConfusingBoat said:
Have you set any static IPs? If so, make sure they don't fall in your DHCP range as this can cause IP conflicts. Also make sure you're close enough to your router to get a good signal.
It's also possible that you just have a crappy router. ISPs are notorious for giving out garbage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1, but he has a seperate Belkin... crap router... needs to get a highend Cisco, and bridge the gateway to prevent DNS issues...
DNS should never be a problem as long as you're not using the ones from your ISP. Use the Google public DNS (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) or some other reliable public DNS service. Years ago when I used the DNS servers from Qwest or Comcast my internet would randomly **** out every few days until I renewed my WAN DHCP.
Also, as far as routers go, I personally use a high-end Buffalo (cost me $80 new) loaded with DD-WRT and a NetGear WNDR-3700 with DD-WRT. Great routers, great firmware. If you have any reasonable amount of tech knowledge I would highly recommend using it.
Let me explain... I worked for Comcast for 2 years... He stated he is running a modem/belkin combo... That's not enough info to determine if he has two separate devices, or and all-in-one Gateway...
If he is using an all-in-one Gateway, and decides to use his own personal router, the Gateway MUST be placed into bridged mode, disabling it's built-in router. If that is not done, he is running a double NAT and will have sporadic DNS issues when the Comcast DNS servers cannot perform the lookup, and have to outsource them to another set of DNS servers...
And yes, Google DNS FTW
In any case it doesn't sound like a double-NAT issue as he said his other devices work fine, and any future double-NAT could be resolved by simply turning the wifi off on any applicable combination device (modem/router combo) and simply running any other routers in infrastructure (AP) mode. Either that or you could place the new router in a DMZ, effectively disabling NAT altogether without actually turning it off. There are many ways to skin a cat, especially in IT.
Btw I'm a developer / network admin at an information services company
ConfusingBoat said:
In any case it doesn't sound like a double-NAT issue as he said his other devices work fine, and any future double-NAT could be resolved by simply turning the wifi off on any applicable combination device (modem/router combo) and simply running any other routers in infrastructure (AP) mode. Either that or you could place the new router in a DMZ, effectively disabling NAT altogether without actually turning it off. There are many ways to skin a cat, especially in IT.
Btw I'm a developer / network admin at an information services company
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand, but having the ISP place it into bridged mode is easier... It's still unclear what equipment he has.
BTW, I don't care...
Quasimodem said:
I understand, but having the ISP place it into bridged mode is easier... It's still unclear what equipment he has.
BTW, I don't care...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure if you realize it, but your response seemed a little crude. My profession is every bit as relevant as you having worked for Comcast, and helps add credibility to my input regardless of whether or not you care.
Now, before this gets derailed into a geek-knowledge **** size contest...
If other wireless devices are working fine as the OP stated and all the affected devices are as small as a phone, it really starts to sound like a poor signal / interference issue. If the OP is in an older building, a building which utilizes dense materials or is full of anything else that may add to the signal attenuation, that could be part of the problem.
Another possible cause is that the DHCP pool isn't big enough to address all of the OP's devices. That's not to say there's not enough free addresses though, as the OP could just increase the pool size.
Or, again, it could just be that the router doesn't have the hardware to support as many devices as are trying to connect.
We really won't know until the OP replies with more information.
Quasimodem said:
this wont fix your router, but make sure your gateway from comcast has been bridged or else you're running a double NAT and will have sporadic DNS error when the comcast DNS servers have to outsource the lookup to other servers...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ConfusingBoat said:
I'm not sure if you realize it, but your response seemed a little crude. My profession is every bit as relevant as you having worked for Comcast, and helps add credibility to my input regardless of whether or not you care.
Now, before this gets derailed into a geek-knowledge **** size contest...
If other wireless devices are working fine as the OP stated and all the affected devices are as small as a phone, it really starts to sound like a poor signal / interference issue. If the OP is in an older building, a building which utilizes dense materials or is full of anything else that may add to the signal attenuation, that could be part of the problem.
Another possible cause is that the DHCP pool isn't big enough to address all of the OP's devices. That's not to say there's not enough free addresses though, as the OP could just increase the pool size.
Or, again, it could just be that the router doesn't have the hardware to support as many devices as are trying to connect.
We really won't know until the OP replies with more information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you read my post above, you will see that his equipment is unknown, and i was providing a helpful tip if in fact he does have a gateway device.
Why in the world would you have him check all you mentioned when it's most likely easily fixable?
**** measuring? I think you just showed yours is smaller..
PS - I accidentally thanked you...
I was just throwing some ideas out there as food for thought because there's a lot that can affect a wireless connection, especially on devices as small as phones.
And my comment about "**** measuring" was thrown in solely because your responses come off rather condescending, especially when you begin with this:
Quasimodem said:
Let me explain... I worked for Comcast for 2 years...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry if I offended you somehow, and I'm sure you're actually a nice and helpful person, but you just come off as a know-it-all prick.
ConfusingBoat said:
I was just throwing some ideas out there as food for thought because there's a lot that can affect a wireless connection, especially on devices as small as phones.
And my comment about "**** measuring" was thrown in solely because your responses come off rather condescending, especially when you begin with this:
Sorry if I offended you somehow, and I'm sure you actually a nice and helpful person, but you just come off as a know-it-all prick.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's all good man, sometimes I'm like that... but we still don't know if he has a gateway device... from memory, belkin doesn't make gateways.... He just needs to optimize his router settings to WPA2-PSK and limit the radio to N only if that's all he's got... A gateway is a different animal and needs to be bridged... Uncheck avoid poor connections...
Why would it only be happening with the phones though, that's my main beef.
ConfusingBoat said:
Why would it only be happening with the phones though, that's my main beef.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cause it's a belkin... and uncheck avoid poor connecions...
Please Share your feedback to help current and future owners of the router
The setup was super easy. Wifi range is much better than the Asus RT-AC66U it replaced. The standard Ethernet cable doesn't fit if you want to keep the outer cover on. The included cables are too short and the power cable is also too short. Otherwise it works well.
I don't like how some "unnamed devices" show up with no IP address in the list of connected devices... how is that even possible? I get if those devices are connected with a set static IP on the device, but if they are assigned via DHCP the IP address *should* show up (I have a LinksysPAP VoIP device set to DHCP that would not show the IP and just shows up as an unnamed device).
Other than that... great device so far, easy to set up. Love the app and the LED light on the top.
lexcyn said:
I don't like how some "unnamed devices" show up with no IP address in the list of connected devices... how is that even possible? I get if those devices are connected with a set static IP on the device, but if they are assigned via DHCP the IP address *should* show up (I have a LinksysPAP VoIP device set to DHCP that would not show the IP and just shows up as an unnamed device).
Other than that... great device so far, easy to set up. Love the app and the LED light on the top.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm still waiting for mine to arrive tomorrow. Do the "unnamed devices" at least show the mac address, so you can identify what they are? I've been curious about how much control I'd have over settings, ip, etc... I'm currently running a Buffalo router with DD-WRT.
adrman said:
I'm still waiting for mine to arrive tomorrow. Do the "unnamed devices" at least show the mac address, so you can identify what they are? I've been curious about how much control I'd have over settings, ip, etc... I'm currently running a Buffalo router with DD-WRT.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes they all at least show the MAC - but that's about it. You can set a static IP and forward ports... but not much else. It's a very simple interface, but I'm assuming it was built that way. I have a feeling as their app evolves they will add more control.
Can you guys post some screenshots ?
Here's a screenshot of the "unnamed device" I was talking about.
Not great here. I'm getting 1/3 of my speed on wifi and 1/10th hard wired compared to my linksys wrt-ac1900. Tech support was pretty responsive and are looking into it. I'm running gigabit fiber. The range seems decent and setup was easy.
Anyone to from a time capsule to this? Wondering if it would be worth the switch.
Unboxing and set up
http://youtu.be/MW8VeWdCo0I
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No way to add devices that use WPS (not a huge deal).
Security is not configurable (not a deal breaker, just interesting)
No web-based interface
No DDNS client (not a huge deal)
No way to view uPnP mappings
The single ethernet port in the back is kind of a drag, but it wasn't an issue for me. Also standard cables will not fit with the cover on.
The "unnamed device" thing is kind of annoying (makes setting up static DHCP entries a hassle) but it's not a huge deal. It would be cool to be able to name these explicitly from within the app.
Setup was easy and quick. Seems to work well, no drop-outs so far. :good:
With the mixed reviews out there, I wasn't expecting much in terms of coverage or perf, but I was pleasantly surprised. Since I live in a fairly large multi story house, I've always had to have range extenders to get upstairs (even with a high-end WAP downstairs). Now, for the first time ever in my house, I have only one WAP (OnHub) and I'm getting 25MB in the farthest reaches of the house. I get 80MB via wifi close to the router (in the same room), but that is similar to what I got before. I get 170MB via wired, so no problem keeping up with a high bandwidth connection, it seems to have plenty of processing power. I suppose putting the OnHub up on a shelf does help with range and perf compared to the old WAP being lower (beneath the TV), but I can't believe placement is making that big of a difference, it seems the range and perf of the OnHub is actually really good. So before where I had 4 wifi networks to deal with (wifi2G, wifi5G, wifi2GExt, wifi5GExt), it's all now just consolidated into one wifi network, which is great. I agree it is kind of a bummer that guest networking is not yet implemented, but I never used it, so not a big issue for me.
I really like being able to do the admin from the mobile app, the simplicity actually takes some getting used to. True, you can't configure security or frequencies (2G, 5G, channels, etc) that I know of, but I'm actually kind of starting to appreciate the simplicity, it is definitely a whole new take on a high-end router/WAP.
Only one LAN port on the OnHub is not really an issue for me because I had more than 4 wired devices (7 to be exact), so I already had an 8 port switch in use, which now (obviously) runs into the one LAN port on the OnHub.
So really my only (minor) issue with it is the standard cables are too short, and I wasn't sure if they were Cat 6, so I just swapped them for 10ft Cat 6 cables I already had; problem solved. I had no problem getting the cover to lock on with normal cables, which sounds different from what others are posting, not sure why, works fine for me.
So far no drops from interference, which was a problem on all my old routers/WAPs since I live in a neighborhood with lots of WAPs in range of my house.
Overall, I'm very happy with it, it has solved most (if not all) my home networking challenges, especially on the wifi side.
llarch said:
With the mixed reviews out there, I wasn't expecting much in terms of coverage or perf, but I was pleasantly surprised. Since I live in a fairly large multi story house, I've always had to have range extenders to get upstairs (even with a high-end WAP downstairs). Now, for the first time ever in my house, I have only one WAP (OnHub) and I'm getting 25MB in the farthest reaches of the house. I get 80MB via wifi close to the router (in the same room), but that is similar to what I got before. I get 170MB via wired, so no problem keeping up with a high bandwidth connection, it seems to have plenty of processing power. I suppose putting the OnHub up on a shelf does help with range and perf compared to the old WAP being lower (beneath the TV), but I can't believe placement is making that big of a difference, it seems the range and perf of the OnHub is actually really good. So before where I had 4 wifi networks to deal with (wifi2G, wifi5G, wifi2GExt, wifi5GExt), it's all now just consolidated into one wifi network, which is great. I agree it is kind of a bummer that guest networking is not yet implemented, but I never used it, so not a big issue for me.
I really like being able to do the admin from the mobile app, the simplicity actually takes some getting used to. True, you can't configure security or frequencies (2G, 5G, channels, etc) that I know of, but I'm actually kind of starting to appreciate the simplicity, it is definitely a whole new take on a high-end router/WAP.
Only one LAN port on the OnHub is not really an issue for me because I had more than 4 wired devices (7 to be exact), so I already had an 8 port switch in use, which now (obviously) runs into the one LAN port on the OnHub.
So really my only (minor) issue with it is the standard cables are too short, and I wasn't sure if they were Cat 6, so I just swapped them for 10ft Cat 6 cables I already had; problem solved. I had no problem getting the cover to lock on with normal cables, which sounds different from what others are posting, not sure why, works fine for me.
So far no drops from interference, which was a problem on all my old routers/WAPs since I live in a neighborhood with lots of WAPs in range of my house.
Overall, I'm very happy with it, it has solved most (if not all) my home networking challenges, especially on the wifi side.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exact experience I'm having with the Onhub.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
The range is awesome. OnHub replaced a RT-66U and Amped AP300 with external powered antenna. My whole house is covered now.
I struggled through the unknown devices issues to get all my static IPs and port fwds setup.
The big issue for me is the OnHub does not support NAT Loopback. So you cannot access your cameras and static devices while at home without using their IP addresses. So my IP Camera app will not be able to find my cameras at home with "xxxx.duckdns.org:1025" but this works when connected to another network or Mobile data. This is a big pain in the a$$ for those of us that like to access things on our networks remotely and while at home.
I contacted support and they have added NAT Loopback to the requests...
A tip if replacing a FiOS router; power down the Verizon ONT for half an hour. Before powering back up, connect the ethernet from the ONT to the OnHub. The power cycle will force a renewed IP and allow the OnHub to register on the network without the need to go through the VZW router.
av8rdude said:
The range is awesome. OnHub replaced a RT-66U and Amped AP300 with external powered antenna. My whole house is covered now.
I struggled through the unknown devices issues to get all my static IPs and port fwds setup.
The big issue for me is the OnHub does not support NAT Loopback. So you cannot access your cameras and static devices while at home without using their IP addresses. So my IP Camera app will not be able to find my cameras at home with "xxxx.duckdns.org:1025" but this works when connected to another network or Mobile data. This is a big pain in the a$$ for those of us that like to access things on our networks remotely and while at home.
I contacted support and they have added NAT Loopback to the requests...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What camera app? If you're using TinyCam you can have internal (wifi) and external (LTE) settings for each camera.
I got mine today. I was using a borrowed modem and router so I needed to purchase something, and was either going to get a Ubiquiti access point (and keep using the borrowed router) or the onhub. So far it's been a great experience. Solid connections. I set a static address for my NAS.
It seems to be working well for me also. My biggest gripe is the "unnamed" devices. With 17 devices and only 3 or 4 that provide a recognizable name to OnHub, perhaps I could give them names?
The unnamed devices thing is very annoying.
Also, when assigning static ip, they need to list the mac address... Otherwise it makes it basically impossible to assign a static ip to one of those unnamed devices... Because which unnamed device are you assigning the ip to? Can't tell...
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
JasonJoel said:
The unnamed devices thing is very annoying.
Also, when assigning static ip, they need to list the mac address... Otherwise it makes it basically impossible to assign a static ip to one of those unnamed devices... Because which unnamed device are you assigning the ip to? Can't tell...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had a 30 minute conversation with support over just that issue. The general response was "well, that's a power user issue and this isn't a power user device" Even so, I'm surprised there hasn't been an update of some kind pushed yet because viewing the mac address to set a static ip isn't exactly "power user" functionality, it's basic.
At work i was playing around with some networking and noticed some weird things. I kept seeing a rogue DHCP server coming up from an IP that I traced to Taiwan. After some time on Wireshark and using this tool I found that every time my Nexus 6P connected to our WiFi it would for a split second send out a DHCP offer to the network on behalf of that Taiwan IP. I thought "Oh My, did I get some malware?". So I reformatted the phone and with a fresh install of the latest Pure Nexus, sure enough on the Setup screen (not even booted all the way into the ROM yet) when I put in the WiFi credentials for the first time, the same broadcast goes out over my LAN. WTF. Is this some sort of phone home backdoor from Huawei or what? I know some phone malware can get in below the ROM level and basically turn your phone into a hypervisor. Hopefully that is not the case or I'll have to toss it in the trash...
Any help is appreciated.
Any easy way for non-techie users like myself to check and verify this?
Bump
Sent from my Nexus 6P using XDA-Developers Legacy app
treesurf said:
Any easy way for non-techie users like myself to check and verify this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Download the dhcp find program and run it from your workstation.
https://www.symantec.com/connect/downloads/detect-rogue-dhcp-servers-network
When it runs it broadcasts a request over your network as if it were a device needing an IP address. Your router or server that controls your DHCP will respond with an offer IP to hand out. A common malware attack is a DHCP man in the middle attack where the rogue DHCP server sends the response before your DHCP server does and it then gives the client machine a different DNS server that is usually some sort of proxy for showing you ads or changing your internet experience for the worse etc. If the wifi hotspot was enabled you'd expect this because the phone does indeed become a DHCP server in order to hand out an IP to your leeching device to tether with. But I have that turned off so that is not the case unless there's a bug in the software.
Once you run that program (your phone needs to be connected to your same network), then turn the wifi off on your phone and then back on again. For me when it joins my Wifi it pings out a DHCP broadcast as shown in my screenshot. It's from an outside IP, originating in Taiwan if you trace it. I have geographic location blocking on my router so its impossible for traffic to actually get to me from that IP but that is what the phone is broadcasting out. I'm a long time sysadmin so I pay pretty close attention to these things i guess.
@Budwise, can you fish flash factory images and check to see it if happens on stock? If not I would definitely report this in the Pure Nexus thread.
I found that I was seeing some odd behavior even when it wasnt connected via WiFi so I believe it happening when it connects is a side effect of something else going on. I think this can be closed.