On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Alexander Best <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Iain Hibbert <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bluetooth To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
