Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:04:30 -0700 From: Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com> To: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Subject: Re: l2ping(8) and -f switch Message-ID: <AANLkTin_%2B8dxE8Go1Bk1vdFg2-bUZ-fn3OHX1RTRmfKa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110328195952.GA26987@freebsd.org> References: <20110328001258.GA70156@freebsd.org> <alpine.NEB.2.00.1103280751410.3331@galant.ukfsn.org> <20110328101804.GA39095@freebsd.org> <alpine.NEB.2.00.1103281452520.27263@galant.ukfsn.org> <AANLkTikLj7QumdtPcB=wGBdyxOyHBusCzUbrtXVC%2BYt1@mail.gmail.com> <20110328195952.GA26987@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Iain Hibbert <plunky@rya-online.net> wrote: >> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Alexander Best wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon Mar 28 11, Iain Hibbert wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Alexander Best wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > thus i believe making the -f switch only accessable to super-users (in >> >> > > accordance with ping(8)/ping6(8)) would increase security. >> >> > >> >> > what stops the user from recompiling l2ping without this restriction? >> >> >> >> nothing. but what stops him from recompiling ping(8) or ping6(8) without the >> >> restriction? still it's there. >> > >> > AFAIK you need superuser privileges to even send ICMP_ECHO packets, thats >> > why ping is traditionally a suid program and making a new binary won't >> > help normal users.. I'm guessing that l2ping doesn't have the same >> > restrictions? >> >> Guys, >> >> first of all thanks for the patch. >> >> i think one really needs to understand what "flood" really means in >> l2ping(8). "flood" ping(8) basically floods the link with icmp echo >> requests without waiting for remote system to reply. yes, this is >> potentially dangerous and thus its reasonable to require super-user >> privileges. "flood" l2ping(8) is NOT the same. all l2ping(8) does is >> "flood" mode >> >> 1) sends l2cap echo request >> 2) waits for l2cap echo response (or timeout) >> 3) repeats >> >> in other words, there is no delay between each l2cap echo >> request-response transaction. its not really "flood". i'm not sure if >> it really worth to go all the way to restricting this. however, if >> people think that it should be restricted, i will not object. > > how about removing the term "flood" from the l2ping(2) man page, if the -f > semantics can't actually be called that way? that would be fine. l2ping(8) -h calls it -f No delay (sort of flood) and l2ping(8) man page calls it -f ``Flood'' ping, i.e., no delay between packets. it would be nice to make those consistent :) i'm not sure what the best name would be though. thanks, max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTin_%2B8dxE8Go1Bk1vdFg2-bUZ-fn3OHX1RTRmfKa>