Re: 2 ideas for NMAP, 1 open question

[William McVey <wam () cisco com>]

On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 21:29, D. wrote:
> I personally think it'd probably be a bad idea to
> put Libnet into nmap, which is why I didn't pursue
> this patch. Also, I found out that it's quite
> difficult to make raw link level packets in a
> portable fashion. Let me know what you think,

Why are you against putting libnet into Nmap?  I've been very happy
every time I've used the libnet API to do packet construction. The
difficulty in building raw packets is exactly the reason why Nmap
*should* use an external library for packet construction.  Libnet
doesn't yet have the extensive list of ported platforms, but it does 
seem to be the right tool for the job.

  -- William

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For help using this (nmap-dev) mailing list, send a blank email to 
nmap-dev-help () insecure org . List run by ezmlm-idx (www.ezmlm.org).