From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:12 this Saturday (GMT):

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:23:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The OSI model was just more academic spaff. Most hardware/software
broke that model anyway.

Not sure what a better alternative is, which is why still use it, or
at least parts of it. My interpretation:

Layer 0
-- the laws of physics. Our starting point for building everything
Layer 1
-- the physical connection. Might be a wire, might be radio waves,
cans connected by string, whatever.
Layer 2
-- the point-to-point communication protocol
Layer 3
-- routing layer
Layer 4
-- end-node-to-end-node communication
Layer 5
-- process on one node communicating with process on another node
Layer 6
-- not really meaningful
Layer 7
-- the actual applications the user wants to run
Layer 8
-- the human user

So you're saying a Social Engineering attack could be called a Layer 8
attack?

If you look for example at IEEE802, then thatrCOs kind of a split across layer 1 and layer 2. IEEE802.2 defines the MAC layer, with those rCLMAC addressesrCY werCOre all familiar with, which is point-to-point but hardware-independent. Then IEEE802.x for x reN 3 defines all the various options for a hardware-dependent layer under that. E.g. 802.3 is (near enough) what we call rCLEthernetrCY, 802.11 is wi-fi, and so on.

So that's why wifi is called 802.11 sometimes, cool!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 19:40:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

So that's why wifi is called 802.11 sometimes, cool!

Or 802.11l, 802.11g, 802.11b, 802.11q, 802.11t ... Not really, but there
are a lot of protocols.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 23:12:37 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:

Layer 6
-- not really meaningful

Actually, I think this would be a good place to put encryption transport layers like SSH and TLS. Because they are not really applications (Layer
7) in themselves, they secure access to those applications.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 10:36:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

My interpretation:

The problem is that everybody interprets the layers between 4 and 7 differently. Especially when the marketingdroids come into the game, you
can forget clear communication.

You interpretation is just adding another kind of ambiguoity.

IrCOm not aware of any interpretations that would conflict with the ones I posted for layers 3, 4, 5 and 7. They are straight out of the original OSI concept, after all.

Layer 9, politics.
Layer 10, religion.

Just class both as rCLideologyrCY. As in rCLanything that is not only separated
from reality, but often in direct conflict with itrCY.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2