Re: Nsock unconnected sockets

[David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>]

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 11:01:50PM -0500, Kris Katterjohn wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 10:18 PM, David Fifield wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 09:17:07PM -0500, Kris Katterjohn wrote:
> > > Well, given that scripts shouldn't be connecting multiple times (which leads
> > > me to believe there should be one connect() for each new_socket()), then a
> > > possibility is this:
> > >
> > > s = nmap.new_socket(<protocol>, <optional family>)
> > > s:connect(host, port) -- remove/deprecate protocol arg
> >
> > This has a little bit of a problem, though, which is the address family.
> > Currently you can do
> >
> > s = nmap.new_socket()
> > s:connect("::1", 80)
> >
> > and it will work fine. If OS socket creation always happens when
> > new_socket is called, then it becomes necessary to declare the address
> > family in advance (even if implicit). Consider that someone may give an
> > address in a script argument--then it becomes necessary to analyze its
> > address family before calling new_socket.
>
> Ah, good point!  But isn't this also a problem with setup/sendto if you send
> to a user-given address?

Yes, you're right.

> > Another thing to consider is that at least one function, bind, needs to
> > be called before the socket is connected.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not sure how this would be an issue.
>
> new_socket("tcp")
> bind("192.168.10.69", 31337)
> connect("192.168.10.1", 80)
>
> and
>
> new_socket("udp")
> bind("192.168.10.69", 31337)
> sendto("192.168.10.1", 53, "stuff")
>
> How would these not work?  I suspect something may have to be moved around,
> but are these really not possible?

You're right, this is a better interface. I'll see what's needed to make
it work.

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