Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10
From: Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:38:48 -0800
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 07:15:21AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Monday 11 January 2010 06:22, Kris Katterjohn wrote: If netcat clones will agree to not break compat gratuitously, that would be a start. My netcat clone, for one, does. Yours does not.
Ncat isn't and was never intended to be a netcat clone. It has a very different set of features and we made the design early on not to constrain ourselves to any particular nc baggage. After all, if you want the exact syntax of Hobbit's (or OpenBSD or so-called GNU) nc, then you can use that exact version. I understand that it can be confusing if you expect "nc" to act one way, and it doesn't. That is why we decided not to even install a symlink from nc to ncat. We chose the name Ncat because the tool is inspired by the original Netcat, but we weren't trying to clone Netcat. That being said, we didn't make gratuitous changes either. However, it seems that many users of the Hobbit's original Netcat want to use Ncat instead because it is maintained and portable to many platforms, and/or because it supports modern networking features like SSL, IPv6, and proxies. We should certainly welcome those users, and I'm all for adding command-line compatibility for major "nc" use cases where we can easily do so. We already added the "-l -p" compatibility option you asked for, and we're open to other suggestions. But such users should be willing to meet us half way and learn a bit about Ncat too. Don't complain about every minor deviation from the syntax of Hobbit's original nc, as cloning nc was never our intent.
I think our syntax for listening on port 123 ("ncat -l 123") is preferable to the longer "nc -l -p 123".
Because it is shorter by 3 chars? Such insignificant advantage is not going to amuse people who would need to jump through hoops in their scripts (checking "nc --version" and such) just in order to open a listening socket.
I think our syntax is more intuitive to new users, and I believe it is also common to some versions of nc. The "-p" thing just seems obvious to you because you learned it long ago. But I think we have solved this issue by documenting the new syntax while still supporting the old one.
I heard that Fedora plans to ditch openbsd's implementation of nc and use ncat. They are going to rename it to nc (otherwise scripts which use nc would break).
I had not heard this. Do you have a link? I'm not opposed to the idea (it is their distribution and thus their decision), but we don't currently install an "nc -> ncat" symlink for the compatibility-with-older-netcats reason already discussed. But I suppose we could consider it if nc users consider Ncat to be "close enough", and if we wouldn't be overwriting an existing "nc". Now that "-l -p" is supported, I'd be interested in hearing from the traditional nc contingent if there are other command-line or functionality incompatibilities you find frustrating. Cheers, Fyodor _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Denys Vlasenko (Jan 08)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 David Fifield (Jan 08)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Fyodor (Jan 08)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Denys Vlasenko (Jan 09)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Kris Katterjohn (Jan 10)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Denys Vlasenko (Jan 10)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Kris Katterjohn (Jan 10)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Denys Vlasenko (Jan 10)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Kris Katterjohn (Jan 10)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Denys Vlasenko (Jan 10)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Fyodor (Jan 12)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Denys Vlasenko (Jan 09)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Jon Kibler (Jan 11)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Ron (Jan 11)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 bensonk (Jan 11)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Daniel Roethlisberger (Jan 10)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Ron (Jan 11)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 Denys Vlasenko (Jan 13)
- Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10 DePriest, Jason R. (Jan 11)