From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Jan 19 01:18:37 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA01283 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 01:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from Relay1.Austria.EU.net (relay1.Austria.EU.net [192.92.138.47]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA01272 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 01:18:20 -0800 (PST) From: marino.ladavac@aut.alcatel.at Received: from atusks01.aut.alcatel.at by Relay1.Austria.EU.net with SMTP id AA02421 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 19 Jan 1996 10:17:40 +0100 Received: from atuhc16 by atusks01.aut.alcatel.at (4.1/SMI-4.1/AAA-1.29/main) id AA04378; Fri, 19 Jan 96 10:16:56 +0100 Message-Id: <9601190916.AA04378@atuhc16.atusks01.aut.alcatel.at> Received: by atuhc16 (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA17610; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 10:16:54 +0100 Subject: Re: ethernet packet sniffer. To: julian@ref.tfs.com (Julian Elischer) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 96 10:16:54 MET Cc: questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199601190314.TAA05783@ref.tfs.com>; from "Julian Elischer" at Jan 18, 96 7:14 pm Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] 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.. It might. The break in insulation you would create when you are attaching your tap might be a visible enough discontinuity. BNC connectors are easily visible even though they are loaded with a matching load. /Alby > >