ARP Poisoning vs. MAC Flooding

Attribute	ARP Poisoning	MAC Flooding
Attack Type	Man-in-the-middle attack	Denial of Service attack
Target	ARP cache table	Switch MAC address table
Objective	Eavesdropping, data interception	Network disruption, resource exhaustion
Protocol	ARP (Address Resolution Protocol)	Layer 2 MAC addresses
Countermeasure	ARP spoofing detection tools, static ARP entries	Port security, MAC address filtering

Introduction

ARP Poisoning and MAC Flooding are two common types of attacks that can be used by malicious actors to compromise network security. While both attacks target the data link layer of the OSI model, they have distinct characteristics and methods of execution. In this article, we will compare the attributes of ARP Poisoning and MAC Flooding to better understand their differences and similarities.

ARP Poisoning

ARP Poisoning, also known as ARP Spoofing, is a type of attack where the attacker sends falsified Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) messages over a local area network. These messages are used to associate the attacker's MAC address with the IP address of a legitimate network device, such as a router or a server. By doing so, the attacker can intercept network traffic intended for the legitimate device, leading to potential data theft or manipulation.

• ARP Poisoning is often used in Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks, where the attacker intercepts and relays communication between two parties without their knowledge.
• One common tool used for ARP Poisoning is Ettercap, which allows attackers to sniff network traffic, capture sensitive information, and launch various attacks.
• ARP Poisoning can be mitigated by implementing secure ARP protocols, such as ARP spoofing detection mechanisms and static ARP entries.

MAC Flooding

MAC Flooding is a type of attack where the attacker floods a switch with a large number of fake MAC addresses, overwhelming the switch's MAC address table. This causes the switch to enter into a fail-open mode, where it starts broadcasting all incoming traffic to all ports, including the attacker's port. As a result, the attacker can intercept network traffic intended for other devices connected to the switch.

• MAC Flooding exploits the limitation of switches to store a finite number of MAC addresses in their tables, leading to a denial of service (DoS) attack or a security breach.
• Tools like Yersinia and macof can be used to perform MAC Flooding attacks, allowing attackers to disrupt network communication and potentially gain unauthorized access to sensitive information.
• Preventing MAC Flooding attacks can be achieved by implementing port security features, such as MAC address filtering and limiting the number of MAC addresses per port.

Comparison

While ARP Poisoning and MAC Flooding both target the data link layer of the OSI model and can lead to unauthorized access to network resources, they differ in their methods of execution and impact on network security. ARP Poisoning focuses on manipulating ARP messages to redirect network traffic, while MAC Flooding overwhelms switch MAC address tables to intercept traffic. Additionally, ARP Poisoning is often used in MitM attacks to eavesdrop on communication, while MAC Flooding is more commonly associated with DoS attacks and network disruption.

• ARP Poisoning requires the attacker to be on the same local network as the target device, making it more suitable for attacks within a LAN environment.
• MAC Flooding can be executed remotely, as long as the attacker can send Ethernet frames to the target switch, making it a potential threat in both LAN and WAN environments.
• Both attacks can be mitigated by implementing security measures, such as network segmentation, encryption, and intrusion detection systems.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ARP Poisoning and MAC Flooding are two distinct types of attacks that exploit vulnerabilities in network protocols and devices to compromise network security. While ARP Poisoning focuses on manipulating ARP messages to intercept communication, MAC Flooding overwhelms switch MAC address tables to disrupt network traffic. By understanding the differences and similarities between these attacks, network administrators can better protect their systems and data from potential threats.