From owner-freebsd-questions  Thu Jan 18 19:15:35 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA27552
          for questions-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 19:15:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA27536
          for <questions@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 19:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id TAA05783; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 19:14:55 -0800
From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>
Message-Id: <199601190314.TAA05783@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: ethernet packet sniffer.
To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 19:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Cc: davem+@andrew.cmu.edu, freebsd-questions@freefall.freebsd.org,
        questions@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960118214019.9200A-100000@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu> from "Chuck Robey" at Jan 18, 96 09:44:04 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> No, it only would reveal physical connections,  Mike Smith was right 
> about what he said, there isn't any way to detect a receiver.  This would 
> only detect extra cable taps that a network administrator didn't know 
> about.  And it wouldn't reveal what those taps were doing, either, just 
> that they existed.
They wouldn't reveal a nonintrusive high impedance tap..

>