Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:38:45 -0700 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Raw Sockets: Two Questions Message-ID: <3394.1521653925@segfault.tristatelogic.com> In-Reply-To: <5AB1A9C5.9050707@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <5AB1A9C5.9050707@grosbein.net>, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> wrote: >21.03.2018 3:09, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7048448/raw-sockets-on-bsd-operating-systems >> "Using raw sockets isn't hard but it's not entirely portable. For >> instance, both in BSD and in Linux you can send whatever you want, >> but in BSD you can't receive anything that has a handler (like TCP >> and UDP)." >> >> So, first question: Is the above comment actually true & accurate? > >Not for FreeBSD. Is it true for other *BSDs? >> Second question: If the above assertion is actually true, then how can >> nmap manage to work so well on FreeBSD, despite what would appear to be >> this insurmountable stumbling block (of not being able to receive replies)? > >nmap uses libdnet that provides some portability layer, including RAW socket operations. >It uses bundled stripped-down version but we have "normal" one as net/libdnet port/package. >You should consider using it too as convenience layer. Thank you. I will certainly look into this, however my needs are quite small and modest... probably so modest that a "convenience layer" wouldn't be a substantial help.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3394.1521653925>