full-disclosure - Re: Exploring the UNKNOWN: Scanning the Internet via SNMP!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <14172.1204827855@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:24:15 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Static Rez <staticrez@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Exploring the UNKNOWN: Scanning the Internet
	via SNMP!

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:13:05 EST, Static Rez said:

> Isn't it true that a TCP packet is typically 20 bytes, and a UDP packet
> about 8? This is minus any additional data that has been added to the
> packet. If this is true, then depending on the size of the pipe your sending
> the data through, and the amount of congestion there might be, a UDP packet
> would more easily and quickly hit its destination.

If your network is so congested that the difference between a min-sized TCP
packet and a min-sized UDP packet matters, you have *bigger* problems...

(In reality, most NICs will refuse to blat out a packet much smaller than
64 bytes or so - there was a number of info-disclosure issues with some
drivers that would try to send a 56 byte packet, and failed to zero out the
8 trailing bytes).

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/