Talk:Raw socket

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

It use SOCK_RAW in programming.

int sock = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_RAW, IPPROTO_RAW);

Windows?[edit]

I'm pretty sure the "no workaround" FUD is wrong: you can run the windows versions of "pcap" etc no problems (granted - there's a lot of system-level driver stuff needed to make it work - but that's the _definition_ of a "workaround", isn't it? :-) 203.206.137.129 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-black-hat uses[edit]

Are there any? --Taejo|대조 13:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn alot of how TCP/IP works, by playing with raw sockets. Raw sockets is pretty cool, because it allows you to craft your own packets. -- Frap 13:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also things like ping, which use ICMP, and need access to packet headers. Raw sockets can only be used by root, of course (or any user with CAP_NET_RAW, I think). Is that right? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raw sockets on Linux... and everything else[edit]

Took out this:

Raw sockets are still available in the Linux operating system.

This is true, of course, but why talk about Linux? Because it's the favorite antagonist of Windows? As far as I know virtually all BSD-based stacks out there still support raw sockets (possibly subject to privilege requirements), with the notable exception of Windows XP. That is, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Mac OS X etcetera all still support raw sockets (though they are more or less useful depending on kernel support), and there's nothing remotely special about Linux here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but then there should at least be more mention of raw sockets on other platforms than just Linux. 82.95.254.249 20:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is NPOV and unbalanced to ONLY mention that Windows was critizized for giving access to raw sockets and that Microsoft limited or removed some raw sockets capabilities. (I'm an anti-MS person, and yet I'm saying this.) It would be perfectly fair to mention in a single sentence that (list of operating systems) provide raw socket support. It would also be useful to list operating systems in another sentence that restrict or prohibit raw socket support (are there any?). 99.225.158.180 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sending... and receiving?[edit]

If the software programmer can send anything he wants as a protocol header, how is the O/S supposed to know what the answer to this packet is? Does it scan the dispatched header in order to detect a protocol it may know? Does the socket receive all the packets received by the NIC? Or does it receive nothing? 90.6.24.20 (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I'm not sure, but the POV seems rather angry in the section marked. Specifically the last sentence. Seems WP:IMPARTIAL may be of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerodlycett (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please make a concrete suggestion, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's best, nor if it even breaks it, hence the check. I think that it should just be removed entirely. However I'll leave it to someone with a better understanding of NPOV. Jerodlycett (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]