Dailydave mailing list archives
on the subject of socketrecycling
From: Bas Alberts <bas.alberts () immunitysec com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 01:36:52 -0500
H D Moore wrote:
And now on to the warez (all written by metasploit staff, part of 2.3)...
Yah doing a simple non-blocking recv round and checking for a tag in any success buffer (or any variation on the theme) is a fairly straightforward way of approaching the socket recycling, and does allow for alot smaller code because you don't have to bother with building handle structs / fd bitmasks for full select fun et al. Practically I've found that when you have room, a GOcode approach allows for a bit more robust handshake and less chance of actually missing your socket due to timing issues or whatever socket funkyness might rear it's head. (I'm a firm believer one should test these things through laggy connections through hosts in whatever hostile nationstate of choice) I suppose at the end of the day it's a matter of personal preference. I've never been of the 'omg i shaved of 3 bytes here' generation and tend to only optimise when the need comes up. Practically GOcode's always worked out fine :) Whichever you prefer I think we can all safely agree that anyone relying on just getpeername for socketrecycling in 2005 clearly hasn't ever stepped a foot out into the real world. Bas _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunitysec com https://lists.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
Current thread:
- on the subject of socketrecycling Bas Alberts (Jan 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- re: on the subject of socketrecycling Bas Alberts (Jan 06)