Re: RFC: proxy support w/o target name resolution

[David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 02:04:45PM +0100, Henri Doreau wrote:
> > We could invent a structure that is a subset of what Target holds.
> > Basically, a host name and an IP address. Either field could be omitted.
> > If we are doing all name resolution through a proxy, the IP address will
> > never be filled in; the host name is the only information we will give
> > the proxy. Then there can be convenience functions, one like the current
> > nsock_connect that takes a sockaddr, and another that takes a string
> > that is a host name (or string representation of an IP address).
>
> Yes, I like this approach. If I understand correctly what you're
> proposing, the target object should be defined and managed by the
> caller, right? What about having a semi-opaque nsock_target object
> that would be passed to the library (à la nsock_iod)? I'd find this
> nicer. Any pro/con?

This works for me.

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