Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:09:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Iain Hibbert <plunky@rya-online.net> To: Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@savvis.net> Cc: freebsd-bluetooth@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bluetooth security Message-ID: <1138734561.599404.4457.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> In-Reply-To: <43DFAACD.5040802@savvis.net> References: <1134598760.901248.1323.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> <43A0AB9E.7060808@savvis.net> <1138708994.303189.24314.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> <43DFAACD.5040802@savvis.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: > > changes though which is saving me lots of work (thanks :) > > sure. common bluetooth api for all bsd's would be ideal. i'm willing to work > in this area. if you have any suggestions to that would make it easier to > share the code please let me know. One of the first issues that I found was that when you wrote the include files, you used NG_ and ng_ prefixes on all the HCI and L2CAP definitions and structures. This seemed unnecessary since HCI and L2CAP defs are not really NetGraph related - I have used your include files hci.h and l2cap.h more or less directly apart from this. The biggest choice I made that intentionaly breaks compatibility is that I chose to have bluetooth address family socket address consistent through the family (ie a single struct sockaddr_bt for all AF_BLUETOOTH sockets) - this means so far that HCI sockets use the bdaddr instead of device name and that L2CAP sockets must set the PSM via setsockopt() but I have to say, that converting the FreeBSD userland libs & utilities was pretty much a noop even after those differences. I haven't especially looked at anything more, am starting work on a RFCOMM layer soon. > > Partly for this reason, I have chosen to have ACL connections for NetBSD > > accepted via the hcsecd userland daemon as while it does not currently > > have the capability, some kind of hosts allow/deny capability can be added > > and thus anybody concerned about security could lock out unknown devices. > > well, you could do that, but, frankly, i do not think this is required. i was > thinking about the same too. that is why i put the following comment in the > ng_l2cap_llpi.c That may be where I got the idea from, it just seemed logical to have the functionality in a single security guard at the gate (who are you? ok - have you a pass? no! whats the code? ok in you come..) how many people use bluetooth for incoming connections and do not enable the hcsecd daemon? regards, iainhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1138734561.599404.4457.nullmailer>