netdev - Re: multicast: bug or "feature"

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <OF743FE77C.521201D4-ON88257379.00608213-88257379.00613A32@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:43:01 -0700
From:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
Cc:	brian.haley@...com, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: multicast: bug or "feature"

I don't know why you'd want it to be different for multicasting. If you
want to hear your own multicasts, you should use MULTICAST_LOOP;
hearing them off the wire indicates all the same bad things -- a forger,
a duplicate address or a routing loop. Those aren't any better for
multicasting than they are for unicasting, that I can see.

Why would you want that to be delivered, other than (apparently)
to test the multicast capability of a pair of interfaces while using
only 1 machine?

                                        +-DLS

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html