From owner-freebsd-bluetooth@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 28 14:04:54 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF18106564A; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:04:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from plunky@rya-online.net) Received: from mail.ukfsn.org (mail.ukfsn.org [77.75.108.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B308FC1B; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:04:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205]) by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFA7DEBFA; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:04:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.ukfsn.org ([192.168.54.25]) by localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L3m1ouofPb9L; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:04:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from galant.ukfsn.org (unknown [89.195.130.65]) by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95493DEBD8; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:04:51 +0100 (BST) Received: by galant.ukfsn.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 45F9226015B; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:04:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:04:29 +0100 (BST) From: Iain Hibbert To: Alexander Best In-Reply-To: <20110328101804.GA39095@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <20110328001258.GA70156@freebsd.org> <20110328101804.GA39095@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (NEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Subject: Re: l2ping(8) and -f switch X-BeenThere: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Using Bluetooth in FreeBSD environments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:04:54 -0000 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? iain