From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Mar 25 18:38:15 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA01205
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postbox.anu.edu.au (postbox.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.16])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA01176
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from coombs.anu.edu.au by postbox.anu.edu.au with SMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA104687875; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:37:55 +1000
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Received: by coombs.anu.edu.au (1.38.193.4) id AA03198; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 13:37:55 +1100
Message-Id: <9603260237.AA03198@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Restricting ping -s and -l
To: taob@io.org (Brian Tao)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 13:37:54 +1100 (EDT)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960325194516.13507Q-100000@cabal.io.org> from "Brian Tao" at Mar 25, 96 07:47:33 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In some mail from Brian Tao, sie said:
> 
>     Are there any good reasons why a non-root user should need the -s
> and -l options in ping?  I've had problems in the past with users
> starting up a dozen "ping -s 8000"'s to a foreign site, saturating our
> own T1 to the net.  Who needs ping -f when you can control the packet
> size.  :(
> 
>     I can't really think of any legitimate reason for allowing -s and
> -l to unprivileged user, but before I modify the source, I figured I'd
> ask around first.  :)

Do you stop them sending arbitary 8000 byte UDP packets ?

Or is it the reurns which hurt ?