Re: [PATCH] [Ncat] Fix EOF handling

[David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>]

On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 11:20:41PM -0500, Kris Katterjohn wrote:
> David Fifield wrote:
> > That's a good idea. In svn://svn.insecure.org/nmap-exp/david/nmap-listen
> > I added -k/--keep-open like you suggested. -k doesn't conflict with any
> > nc or GNU Netcat options. However, I see that a Windows version of
> > Netcat uses -L ("listen harder") for much the same feature.
> >
> > http://osdir.com/ml/os.apple.macports.user/2007-07/msg00072.html
> >
> > There was a request for -L in Ncat, and Kris pointed out that -l already
> > does that.
> >
> > http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2009/q1/0037.html
> >
> > But because persistent connections cause some programs to lose the tail
> > end of transfers, we're thinking of making non-persistent the default. I
> > think the ncat-listen branch does what we need, but it remains to choose
> > the user interface. I like -k/--keep-open, but -L (and maybe --Listen?)
> > has the benefit of a precedent. Does anyone have a preference?
>
> I'm confused: Daniel said in his initial post that the -k option in his patch
> is like the same option from BSD netcat.  So -k has precedent too, right?

Silly me, I forgot that there was a patch at the beginning of this long
thread. I ended up doing almost exactly the same thing in the
ncat-listen branch. It's because I didn't understand the problem at
first.

I'm glad BSD nc has -k, because I like that better also. Ours works a
little differently; nc -k handles one connection at a time and other
connections block until the first is ended.

I move that we adopt Daniel's listen-mode patch, because ncat-listen
also had a refactoring of --exec that I don't think is worth it.

David Fifield

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org