1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Raw socket support in Winsock ?

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by karthikbalaguru, Jan 4, 2010.

  1. karthikbalaguru

    karthikbalaguru Flightless Bird

    Hi,
    I came across the below link -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_socket

    I am eager to know the reasons for the raw socket
    support in the Winsock interface during the initial
    Windows XP release ?
    Any specific reasons / uses for it ?

    Thx in advans,
    Karthik Balaguru
     
  2. Andrew McLaren

    Andrew McLaren Flightless Bird

  3. karthikbalaguru

    karthikbalaguru Flightless Bird

    On Jan 5, 4:54 pm, Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> wrote:
    > karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > > I am eager to know the reasons for the raw socket
    > > support in the Winsock interface during the initial
    > > Windows XP release ?

    >
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740548(VS.85).aspx


    Thx for the link !

    As per the link, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets
    has been restricted in several ways in new Windows
    releases after 'Windows XP with SP2' .

    The reasons for the below changes w.r.t Raw Sockets
    are not clearly mentioned in that link . Any ideas ?
    1) TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
    But why ?

    2) A call to the bind function with a raw socket is not allowed.
    But why ? Any ideas ?

    But, the below reason w.r.t raw socket & UDP datagram
    support is clear -
    3) UDP datagrams with an invalid source address cannot be sent
    over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP
    datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is
    dropped. This change was made to limit the ability of malicious
    code to create distributed denial-of-service attacks and limits the
    ability to send spoofed packets (TCP/IP packets with a forged
    source IP address).

    Thx in advans,
    Karthik Balaguru
     
  4. John John - MVP

    John John - MVP Flightless Bird

    karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > On Jan 5, 4:54 pm, Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> wrote:
    >> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    >>> I am eager to know the reasons for the raw socket
    >>> support in the Winsock interface during the initial
    >>> Windows XP release ?

    >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740548(VS.85).aspx

    >
    > Thx for the link !
    >
    > As per the link, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets
    > has been restricted in several ways in new Windows
    > releases after 'Windows XP with SP2' .
    >
    > The reasons for the below changes w.r.t Raw Sockets
    > are not clearly mentioned in that link . Any ideas ?
    > 1) TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
    > But why ?
    >
    > 2) A call to the bind function with a raw socket is not allowed.
    > But why ? Any ideas ?
    >
    > But, the below reason w.r.t raw socket & UDP datagram
    > support is clear -
    > 3) UDP datagrams with an invalid source address cannot be sent
    > over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP
    > datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is
    > dropped. This change was made to limit the ability of malicious
    > code to create distributed denial-of-service attacks and limits the
    > ability to send spoofed packets (TCP/IP packets with a forged
    > source IP address).


    It's all to do with security.

     
  5. karthikbalaguru

    karthikbalaguru Flightless Bird

    On Jan 5, 8:37 pm, John John - MVP <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote:
    > karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > > On Jan 5, 4:54 pm, Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> wrote:
    > >> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > >>> I am eager to know the reasons for the raw socket
    > >>> support in the Winsock interface during the initial
    > >>> Windows XP release ?
    > >>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740548(VS.85).aspx

    >
    > > Thx for the link !

    >
    > > As per the link, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets
    > > has been restricted in several ways in new Windows
    > > releases after 'Windows XP with SP2' .

    >
    > > The reasons for the below changes w.r.t Raw Sockets
    > > are not clearly mentioned in that link . Any ideas ?
    > > 1) TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
    > > But why ?

    >
    > > 2) A call to the bind function with a raw socket is not allowed.
    > > But why ? Any ideas ?

    >
    > > But, the below reason w.r.t raw socket & UDP datagram
    > > support is clear -
    > > 3) UDP datagrams with an invalid source address cannot be sent
    > > over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP
    > > datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is
    > > dropped. This change was made to limit the ability of malicious
    > > code to create distributed denial-of-service attacks and limits the
    > > ability to send spoofed packets (TCP/IP packets with a forged
    > > source IP address).

    >
    > It's all to do with security.
    >


    Okay. Agreed !!
    But, why is this change not present in the
    versions earlier to 'Windows XP with SP2' ?

    The below link seems to convey that these restrictions
    do not apply to Windows Server 2008 , Windows Server
    2003, or to versions of the operating system earlier
    than Windows XP with SP2 . But, Why ?
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740548(VS.85).aspx#

    >
     
  6. John John - MVP

    John John - MVP Flightless Bird

    karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > On Jan 5, 8:37 pm, John John - MVP <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote:
    >> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    >>> On Jan 5, 4:54 pm, Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> wrote:
    >>>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    >>>>> I am eager to know the reasons for the raw socket
    >>>>> support in the Winsock interface during the initial
    >>>>> Windows XP release ?
    >>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740548(VS.85).aspx
    >>> Thx for the link !
    >>> As per the link, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets
    >>> has been restricted in several ways in new Windows
    >>> releases after 'Windows XP with SP2' .
    >>> The reasons for the below changes w.r.t Raw Sockets
    >>> are not clearly mentioned in that link . Any ideas ?
    >>> 1) TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
    >>> But why ?
    >>> 2) A call to the bind function with a raw socket is not allowed.
    >>> But why ? Any ideas ?
    >>> But, the below reason w.r.t raw socket & UDP datagram
    >>> support is clear -
    >>> 3) UDP datagrams with an invalid source address cannot be sent
    >>> over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP
    >>> datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is
    >>> dropped. This change was made to limit the ability of malicious
    >>> code to create distributed denial-of-service attacks and limits the
    >>> ability to send spoofed packets (TCP/IP packets with a forged
    >>> source IP address).

    >> It's all to do with security.
    >>

    >
    > Okay. Agreed !!
    > But, why is this change not present in the
    > versions earlier to 'Windows XP with SP2' ?


    It was changed by way of a security update after SP1 (but before SP2),
    but there was a workaround that still allowed users to circumvent the
    security fix and still allow traffic over raw sockets. With SP2 it was
    decided to plug this workaround too.

    Why was this even present in the 'gold' or original RTM Windows XP
    version? I don't know, probably because it was thought that there was a
    legitimate use and need for this, but maybe after Windows XP was
    released Microsoft might have had a change of mind and decided that this
    feature should not be enabled on "client" or "consumer" versions of
    their operating systems. Before SP2 came about embarrassing security
    flaws were being exposed on a regular basis and Microsoft made an all
    out effort to plug a lot of holes in Windows XP, the word then was that
    almost all other projects were on hold or slowed down while Microsoft
    concentrated on security and worked on SP2 for Windows XP, even Vista's
    release was pushed back while Microsoft worked at securing their
    flagship product.

    For all it's worth Unix and Linux permit traffic over raw sockets and
    the Windows server versions also allow this, although I'm unsure if
    Server 2008 still allows it. I think that it's probably just that with
    all kinds of bumbling users on XP a decision was made to "protect the
    users from themselves" so they plugged up raw sockets as a preemptive
    strike against possible exploits. But that is just what I think at this
    time... I don't know the exact reasons behind these decisions.

    John
     
  7. Peter Foldes

    Peter Foldes Flightless Bird

    John John

    W2K8 R2 does allow it but not W2K8 stand alone except for the Enterprise version

    --
    Peter

    Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
    Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

    "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
    news:ebTFMDjjKHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    > karthikbalaguru wrote:
    >> On Jan 5, 8:37 pm, John John - MVP <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote:
    >>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    >>>> On Jan 5, 4:54 pm, Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> wrote:
    >>>>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    >>>>>> I am eager to know the reasons for the raw socket
    >>>>>> support in the Winsock interface during the initial
    >>>>>> Windows XP release ?
    >>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740548(VS.85).aspx
    >>>> Thx for the link !
    >>>> As per the link, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets
    >>>> has been restricted in several ways in new Windows
    >>>> releases after 'Windows XP with SP2' .
    >>>> The reasons for the below changes w.r.t Raw Sockets
    >>>> are not clearly mentioned in that link . Any ideas ?
    >>>> 1) TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
    >>>> But why ?
    >>>> 2) A call to the bind function with a raw socket is not allowed.
    >>>> But why ? Any ideas ?
    >>>> But, the below reason w.r.t raw socket & UDP datagram
    >>>> support is clear -
    >>>> 3) UDP datagrams with an invalid source address cannot be sent
    >>>> over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP
    >>>> datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is
    >>>> dropped. This change was made to limit the ability of malicious
    >>>> code to create distributed denial-of-service attacks and limits the
    >>>> ability to send spoofed packets (TCP/IP packets with a forged
    >>>> source IP address).
    >>> It's all to do with security.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Okay. Agreed !!
    >> But, why is this change not present in the
    >> versions earlier to 'Windows XP with SP2' ?

    >
    > It was changed by way of a security update after SP1 (but before SP2), but there
    > was a workaround that still allowed users to circumvent the security fix and still
    > allow traffic over raw sockets. With SP2 it was decided to plug this workaround
    > too.
    >
    > Why was this even present in the 'gold' or original RTM Windows XP version? I
    > don't know, probably because it was thought that there was a legitimate use and
    > need for this, but maybe after Windows XP was released Microsoft might have had a
    > change of mind and decided that this feature should not be enabled on "client" or
    > "consumer" versions of their operating systems. Before SP2 came about
    > embarrassing security flaws were being exposed on a regular basis and Microsoft
    > made an all out effort to plug a lot of holes in Windows XP, the word then was
    > that almost all other projects were on hold or slowed down while Microsoft
    > concentrated on security and worked on SP2 for Windows XP, even Vista's release
    > was pushed back while Microsoft worked at securing their flagship product.
    >
    > For all it's worth Unix and Linux permit traffic over raw sockets and the Windows
    > server versions also allow this, although I'm unsure if Server 2008 still allows
    > it. I think that it's probably just that with all kinds of bumbling users on XP a
    > decision was made to "protect the users from themselves" so they plugged up raw
    > sockets as a preemptive strike against possible exploits. But that is just what I
    > think at this time... I don't know the exact reasons behind these decisions.
    >
    > John
     
  8. karthikbalaguru

    karthikbalaguru Flightless Bird

    On Jan 6, 1:46 am, "Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > "John John - MVP" <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in messagenews:ebTFMDjjKHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >
    >
    >
    > > karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > >> On Jan 5, 8:37 pm, John John - MVP <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote:
    > >>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > >>>> On Jan 5, 4:54 pm, Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> wrote:
    > >>>>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > >>>>>> I am eager to know the reasons for the raw socket
    > >>>>>> support in the Winsock interface during the initial
    > >>>>>> Windows XP release ?
    > >>>>>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740548(VS.85).aspx
    > >>>> Thx for the link !
    > >>>> As per the link, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets
    > >>>> has been restricted in several ways in new Windows
    > >>>> releases after 'Windows XP with SP2' .
    > >>>> The reasons for the below changes w.r.t Raw Sockets
    > >>>> are not clearly mentioned in that link . Any ideas ?
    > >>>> 1) TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
    > >>>> But why ?
    > >>>> 2) A call to the bind function with a raw socket is not allowed.
    > >>>> But why ? Any ideas ?
    > >>>> But, the below reason w.r.t raw socket & UDP datagram
    > >>>> support is clear -
    > >>>> 3) UDP datagrams with an invalid source address cannot be sent
    > >>>> over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP
    > >>>> datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is
    > >>>> dropped. This change was made to limit the ability of malicious
    > >>>> code to create distributed denial-of-service attacks and limits the
    > >>>> ability to send spoofed packets (TCP/IP packets with a forged
    > >>>> source IP address).
    > >>> It's all to do with security.

    >
    > >> Okay. Agreed !!
    > >> But, why is this change not present in the
    > >> versions earlier to 'Windows XP with SP2' ?

    >
    > > It was changed by way of a security update after SP1 (but before SP2), but there
    > > was a workaround that still allowed users to circumvent the security fix and still
    > > allow traffic over raw sockets.  With SP2 it was decided to plug thisworkaround
    > > too.

    >
    > > Why was this even present in the 'gold' or original RTM Windows XP version?  I
    > > don't know, probably because it was thought that there was a legitimateuse and
    > > need for this, but maybe after Windows XP was released Microsoft might have had a
    > > change of mind and decided that this feature should not be enabled on "client" or
    > > "consumer" versions of their operating systems.  Before SP2 came about
    > > embarrassing security flaws were being exposed on a regular basis and Microsoft
    > > made an all out effort to plug a lot of holes in Windows XP, the word then was
    > > that almost all other projects were on hold or slowed down while Microsoft
    > > concentrated on security and worked on SP2 for Windows XP, even Vista'srelease
    > > was pushed back while Microsoft worked at securing their flagship product.

    >
    > > For all it's worth Unix and Linux permit traffic over raw sockets and the Windows
    > > server versions also allow this, although I'm unsure if Server 2008 still allows
    > > it.  I think that it's probably just that with all kinds of bumbling users on XP a
    > > decision was made to "protect the users from themselves" so they plugged up raw
    > > sockets as a preemptive strike against possible exploits.  But that is just what I
    > > think at this time... I don't know the exact reasons behind these decisions.

    >
    > John John
    >
    > W2K8 R2 does allow it but not W2K8 stand alone except for the Enterpriseversion
    >


    Would cygwin also not support the Raw
    sockets as Winsock has been is used by
    it ?

    But, i need raw socket for an application
    that i am trying to execute from cygwin in
    'Windows XP with SP2' & Vista . How can
    this be achieved ?

    In Iinux, it seems that there is restriction at
    user-level (root/normal user) to use the raw
    sockets. So, it was not a problem.

    Thx in advans,
    Karthik Balaguru
     
  9. John John - MVP

    John John - MVP Flightless Bird

    karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > On Jan 6, 1:46 am, "Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> "John John - MVP" <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in messagenews:ebTFMDjjKHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    >>>> On Jan 5, 8:37 pm, John John - MVP <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote:
    >>>>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    >>>>>> On Jan 5, 4:54 pm, Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    >>>>>>>> I am eager to know the reasons for the raw socket
    >>>>>>>> support in the Winsock interface during the initial
    >>>>>>>> Windows XP release ?
    >>>>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740548(VS.85).aspx
    >>>>>> Thx for the link !
    >>>>>> As per the link, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets
    >>>>>> has been restricted in several ways in new Windows
    >>>>>> releases after 'Windows XP with SP2' .
    >>>>>> The reasons for the below changes w.r.t Raw Sockets
    >>>>>> are not clearly mentioned in that link . Any ideas ?
    >>>>>> 1) TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
    >>>>>> But why ?
    >>>>>> 2) A call to the bind function with a raw socket is not allowed.
    >>>>>> But why ? Any ideas ?
    >>>>>> But, the below reason w.r.t raw socket & UDP datagram
    >>>>>> support is clear -
    >>>>>> 3) UDP datagrams with an invalid source address cannot be sent
    >>>>>> over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP
    >>>>>> datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is
    >>>>>> dropped. This change was made to limit the ability of malicious
    >>>>>> code to create distributed denial-of-service attacks and limits the
    >>>>>> ability to send spoofed packets (TCP/IP packets with a forged
    >>>>>> source IP address).
    >>>>> It's all to do with security.
    >>>> Okay. Agreed !!
    >>>> But, why is this change not present in the
    >>>> versions earlier to 'Windows XP with SP2' ?
    >>> It was changed by way of a security update after SP1 (but before SP2), but there
    >>> was a workaround that still allowed users to circumvent the security fix and still
    >>> allow traffic over raw sockets. With SP2 it was decided to plug this workaround
    >>> too.
    >>> Why was this even present in the 'gold' or original RTM Windows XP version? I
    >>> don't know, probably because it was thought that there was a legitimate use and
    >>> need for this, but maybe after Windows XP was released Microsoft might have had a
    >>> change of mind and decided that this feature should not be enabled on "client" or
    >>> "consumer" versions of their operating systems. Before SP2 came about
    >>> embarrassing security flaws were being exposed on a regular basis and Microsoft
    >>> made an all out effort to plug a lot of holes in Windows XP, the word then was
    >>> that almost all other projects were on hold or slowed down while Microsoft
    >>> concentrated on security and worked on SP2 for Windows XP, even Vista's release
    >>> was pushed back while Microsoft worked at securing their flagship product.
    >>> For all it's worth Unix and Linux permit traffic over raw sockets and the Windows
    >>> server versions also allow this, although I'm unsure if Server 2008 still allows
    >>> it. I think that it's probably just that with all kinds of bumbling users on XP a
    >>> decision was made to "protect the users from themselves" so they plugged up raw
    >>> sockets as a preemptive strike against possible exploits. But that is just what I
    >>> think at this time... I don't know the exact reasons behind these decisions.

    >> John John
    >>
    >> W2K8 R2 does allow it but not W2K8 stand alone except for the Enterprise version
    >>

    >
    > Would cygwin also not support the Raw
    > sockets as Winsock has been is used by
    > it ?


    Ask the folks in the cygwin help groups, they may know of a workaround.


    > But, i need raw socket for an application
    > that i am trying to execute from cygwin in
    > 'Windows XP with SP2' & Vista . How can
    > this be achieved ?


    Use a driver that doesn't use the Windows TCP/IP stack, maybe try WinPcap.


    > In Iinux, it seems that there is restriction at
    > user-level (root/normal user) to use the raw
    > sockets. So, it was not a problem.


    That is also sort of how NT4/Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro did it, it
    was/is only allowed with administrative privileges. But for SP2 and
    later it was plugged for all users on XP.

    John
     
  10. karthikbalaguru

    karthikbalaguru Flightless Bird

    On Jan 6, 6:44 pm, John John - MVP <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote:
    > karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > > On Jan 6, 1:46 am, "Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >> "John John - MVP" <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in messagenews:ebTFMDjjKHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

    >
    > >>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > >>>> On Jan 5, 8:37 pm, John John - MVP <audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote:
    > >>>>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > >>>>>> On Jan 5, 4:54 pm, Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> wrote:
    > >>>>>>> karthikbalaguru wrote:
    > >>>>>>>> I am eager to know the reasons for the raw socket
    > >>>>>>>> support in the Winsock interface during the initial
    > >>>>>>>> Windows XP release ?
    > >>>>>>>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740548(VS.85).aspx
    > >>>>>> Thx for the link !
    > >>>>>> As per the link, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets
    > >>>>>> has been restricted in several ways in new Windows
    > >>>>>> releases after 'Windows XP with SP2' .
    > >>>>>> The reasons for the below changes w.r.t Raw Sockets
    > >>>>>> are not clearly mentioned in that link . Any ideas ?
    > >>>>>> 1) TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
    > >>>>>> But why ?
    > >>>>>> 2) A call to the bind function with a raw socket is not allowed.
    > >>>>>> But why ? Any ideas ?
    > >>>>>> But, the below reason w.r.t raw socket & UDP datagram
    > >>>>>> support is clear -
    > >>>>>> 3) UDP datagrams with an invalid source address cannot be sent
    > >>>>>> over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP
    > >>>>>> datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is
    > >>>>>> dropped. This change was made to limit the ability of malicious
    > >>>>>> code to create distributed denial-of-service attacks and limits the
    > >>>>>> ability to send spoofed packets (TCP/IP packets with a forged
    > >>>>>> source IP address).
    > >>>>> It's all to do with security.
    > >>>> Okay. Agreed !!
    > >>>> But, why is this change not present in the
    > >>>> versions earlier to 'Windows XP with SP2' ?
    > >>> It was changed by way of a security update after SP1 (but before SP2), but there
    > >>> was a workaround that still allowed users to circumvent the security fix and still
    > >>> allow traffic over raw sockets.  With SP2 it was decided to plug this workaround
    > >>> too.
    > >>> Why was this even present in the 'gold' or original RTM Windows XP version?  I
    > >>> don't know, probably because it was thought that there was a legitimate use and
    > >>> need for this, but maybe after Windows XP was released Microsoft might have had a
    > >>> change of mind and decided that this feature should not be enabled on"client" or
    > >>> "consumer" versions of their operating systems.  Before SP2 came about
    > >>> embarrassing security flaws were being exposed on a regular basis andMicrosoft
    > >>> made an all out effort to plug a lot of holes in Windows XP, the wordthen was
    > >>> that almost all other projects were on hold or slowed down while Microsoft
    > >>> concentrated on security and worked on SP2 for Windows XP, even Vista's release
    > >>> was pushed back while Microsoft worked at securing their flagship product.
    > >>> For all it's worth Unix and Linux permit traffic over raw sockets andthe Windows
    > >>> server versions also allow this, although I'm unsure if Server 2008 still allows
    > >>> it.  I think that it's probably just that with all kinds of bumbling users on XP a
    > >>> decision was made to "protect the users from themselves" so they plugged up raw
    > >>> sockets as a preemptive strike against possible exploits.  But thatis just what I
    > >>> think at this time... I don't know the exact reasons behind these decisions.
    > >> John John

    >
    > >> W2K8 R2 does allow it but not W2K8 stand alone  except for the Enterprise version

    >
    > > Would cygwin also not support the Raw
    > > sockets as Winsock has been is used by
    > > it ?

    >
    > Ask the folks in the cygwin help groups, they may know of a workaround.
    >


    Okay, I checked with cygwin help groups.
    http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-01/msg00183.html

    > > But, i need raw socket for an application
    > > that i am trying to execute from cygwin in
    > > 'Windows XP with SP2' & Vista . How can
    > > this be achieved ?

    >
    > Use a driver that doesn't use the Windows TCP/IP stack, maybe try WinPcap..
    >


    This seems to the right approach !
    WinPcap for raw sockets in windows seems
    to be the only only way out as of now !

    > > In Iinux, it seems that there is restriction at
    > > user-level (root/normal user) to use the raw
    > > sockets. So, it was not a problem.

    >
    > That is also sort of how NT4/Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro did it, it
    > was/is only allowed with administrative privileges.  But for SP2 and
    > later it was plugged for all users on XP.
    >


    I wonder how linux is secure without plugging
    off while windows had to plug off to be secure !

    Thx,
    Karthik Balaguru
     

Share This Page