Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:59:52 +0000 From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> To: Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Subject: Re: l2ping(8) and -f switch Message-ID: <20110328195952.GA26987@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikLj7QumdtPcB=wGBdyxOyHBusCzUbrtXVC%2BYt1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110328001258.GA70156@freebsd.org> <alpine.NEB.2.00.1103280751410.3331@galant.ukfsn.org> <20110328101804.GA39095@freebsd.org> <alpine.NEB.2.00.1103281452520.27263@galant.ukfsn.org> <AANLkTikLj7QumdtPcB=wGBdyxOyHBusCzUbrtXVC%2BYt1@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Iain Hibbert <plunky@rya-online.net> 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? > > thanks, > max -- a13x
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110328195952.GA26987>