On 29 Jun, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump(1).
>
> Comments?
If you do this, please work with
On 29 Jun, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
>
> Comments?
If you do this, please work with Bi
Boris Popov wrote:
>
> Hope it will be possible. The samba team is very restrictive about
> BSD-style license. As result I can say that smbfs for FreeBSD doesn't
> contain any GPLd code from Linux's smbfs.
>
> BTW, does anybody have objections about name of this file system
> in
Boris Popov wrote:
>
> Hope it will be possible. The samba team is very restrictive about
> BSD-style license. As result I can say that smbfs for FreeBSD doesn't
> contain any GPLd code from Linux's smbfs.
>
> BTW, does anybody have objections about name of this file system
> in F
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes:
: I would say it is not _acceptable_. The code shouldn't go into our
: source tree until the known buffer overflow problems have been fixed.
: It's just stupid to add buffer overflow problems to a program that is
: always run as root.
With my s
In message <199906301826.laa07...@vashon.polstra.com> John Polstra writes:
: I would say it is not _acceptable_. The code shouldn't go into our
: source tree until the known buffer overflow problems have been fixed.
: It's just stupid to add buffer overflow problems to a program that is
: always r
On 30 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Bill Fumerola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> > patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> > to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to
> I would say it is not _acceptable_. The code shouldn't go into our
> source tree until the known buffer overflow problems have been fixed.
> It's just stupid to add buffer overflow problems to a program that is
> always run as root.
Minor correction: tcpdump will run happily as non-root as lon
On 30 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Bill Fumerola writes:
> > Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> > patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> > to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
>
> Wil
Bill Fumerola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump(1).
Will they be included in a future offi
Bill Fumerola writes:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
Will they be included in a future official release of tcpdu
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthew Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the point is that when root is running tcpdump on host A, a bad
> guy on host B can create a packet which makes tcpdump on A execute his
> code (as root, since that's who's running it). This is not desirable.
I
> I would say it is not _acceptable_. The code shouldn't go into our
> source tree until the known buffer overflow problems have been fixed.
> It's just stupid to add buffer overflow problems to a program that is
> always run as root.
Minor correction: tcpdump will run happily as non-root as long
In article <19990630092358.a51...@wopr.caltech.edu>,
Matthew Hunt wrote:
>
> I think the point is that when root is running tcpdump on host A, a bad
> guy on host B can create a packet which makes tcpdump on A execute his
> code (as root, since that's who's running it). This is not desirable.
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 05:53:41AM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > I should warn you though that there are some security issues with my
> > tcpdump-smb patches. It is possible for a malicious user to put
> > packets on the wire that will cause a buffer overflow in the SMB
> > pars
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 05:53:41AM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > I should warn you though that there are some security issues with my
> > tcpdump-smb patches. It is possible for a malicious user to put
> > packets on the wire that will cause a buffer overflow in the SMB
> > parse
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Fumerola [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:54 AM
> To: David O'Brien
> Cc: Bill Fumerola; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: tcpdump(1) additions.
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, David O'Bri
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Fumerola [SMTP:bi...@chc-chimes.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:54 AM
> To: David O'Brien
> Cc: Bill Fumerola; hack...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: tcpdump(1) additions.
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, David O'
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> > patches (as seen on www.samba.org)
>
> Cool! I've been meaning to do this for quite some time. HOWEVER, plea
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> > patches (as seen on www.samba.org)
>
> Cool! I've been meaning to do this for quite some time. HOWEVER, pleas
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
I would bet there are a million other programs on rootshell or other such
sites that do just that.
If someone has
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
I would bet there are a million other programs on rootshell or other such
sites that do just that.
If someone has c
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> > It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> > complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
>
> Thats such a bogus issue.
The argument (to me) is not one of capability, but expediency. If you're
running
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> > It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> > complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
>
> Thats such a bogus issue.
The argument (to me) is not one of capability, but expediency. If you're
running
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
There are plenty of patches to do this available, and plenty of other
packet sniffers that do this. AFAIK even the attitude of the tcpdump
maintainers is changi
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
There are plenty of patches to do this available, and plenty of other
packet sniffers that do this. AFAIK even the attitude of the tcpdump
maintainers is changin
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org)
Cool! I've been meaning to do this for quite some time. HOWEVER, please
reference this PGP signed email (I'll send you the
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org)
Cool! I've been meaning to do this for quite some time. HOWEVER, please
reference this PGP signed email (I'll send you the
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
Thats such a bogus issue.
IIRC there are ports that do the same thing (automatic snarfing of
cleartext passwords fr
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
Thats such a bogus issue.
IIRC there are ports that do the same thing (automatic snarfing of
cleartext passwords fro
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:22:08AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
Ok, so how about making it a compile time option, turned off by default?
That way, you have to
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
And thus was born tcpshow.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
And thus was born tcpshow.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:22:08AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
Ok, so how about making it a compile time option, turned off by default?
That way, you have to r
It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 1:38 pm +1000 30/6/99, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >[...]
> >Whilst we're at it, how about extending `-x' to print
It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 1:38 pm +1000 30/6/99, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >[...]
> >Whilst we're at it, how about extending `-x' to print o
Hi,
At 1:38 pm +1000 30/6/99, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>[...]
>Whilst we're at it, how about extending `-x' to print out the packet
>in ASCII and hex (ala hd(1)). I know the code includes the statement
>
> * (BTW, please don't send us patches to print the packet out in ascii)
>
>but I find this featu
Hi,
At 1:38 pm +1000 30/6/99, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>[...]
>Whilst we're at it, how about extending `-x' to print out the packet
>in ASCII and hex (ala hd(1)). I know the code includes the statement
>
> * (BTW, please don't send us patches to print the packet out in ascii)
>
>but I find this featur
Bill Fumerola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
>patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
>to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump(1).
I also think it's a good idea. Judging fr
Bill Fumerola wrote:
>Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
>patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
>to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
I also think it's a good idea. Judging from what has happened
yes!
they've been submitted to the tcpdump folks many times.
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> [bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
>
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
yes!
they've been submitted to the tcpdump folks many times.
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> [bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
>
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
I'm also will be happy to see NCP protocol dumps, but probably, it
isn't a high priority task.
> > Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> > www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there for FreeBSD
> > (exc
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
I'm also will be happy to see NCP protocol dumps, but probably, it
isn't a high priority task.
> > Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> > www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there for FreeBSD
> > (exce
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Pierre Beyssac wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> > patches (as seen on www.samba.org)
>
> Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> ww
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Pierre Beyssac wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> > patches (as seen on www.samba.org)
>
> Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> www
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Pierre Beyssac wrote:
> Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there for FreeBSD
> (except for samba itself).
It makes tcpdump understand SMB packets (header structure, etc). See the
tcpdump-smb
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Pierre Beyssac wrote:
> Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there for FreeBSD
> (except for samba itself).
It makes tcpdump understand SMB packets (header structure, etc). See the
tcpdump-smb p
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org)
Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there f
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org)
Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there fo
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> [bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
>
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> [bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
>
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1
52 matches
Mail list logo
