Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10

[bensonk () acm wwu edu]

Agreed.  I still install hobbit's nc when possible because it's the
first version I used, and old habits die hard.  I'd love it if ncat
would just work with hobbit style command line args.  Since that sounds
like what's going to happen, I think we're good.  I don't think that
having another way to pass arguments hurts anything, and it sounds like
it'll make many people happy.  

In this vein, I'd like to vote that the warning about ancient flag usage
be relegated to debug output or not shown at all.  If I run 
`ncat -l -p 4738` I probably know what I want, and don't need to be
warned about it.  

Just my two cents. 

Benson

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 01:48:05PM -0600, Ron wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 02:50 AM, Jon Kibler wrote:
> > Like many pen testers, I have used Hobbit's nc for so many years that I
> > cannot remember when I first started using it. When I saw ncat was
> > available, I decided to try it, since it appeared that there would now
> > be a fully supported netcat available from a very reliable source.
> >
> > However, as soon as I started to run into syntax differences, I
> > immediately dropped it (I had just created an alias of nc=ncat). During
> > a pen test there simply isn't time to stop and think "new program,
> > different syntax." Old habits die hard.
> >
> > I have heard several other pen testers express the same opinion. Please
> > change the program to be compatible with the original nc! Whereas you
> > may think the syntax change is an improvement, it is not -- at least not
> > to long time nc users.
> >
> > Finally, I have to ask this -- and this is not a flame, I am just
> > curious from a human factors standpoint: For how many years had you used
> > nc on a daily basis before rewriting it into ncat? (I suspect not many,
> > or at least not as a daily user. Otherwise, I don't think it would have
> > even occurred to your to change the syntax.)
> >
> > Thanks in advance for making the two programs syntactically compatible!
> >
> > Jon K
>
> I actually agree with that, in many ways. Having to re-learn commands 
> for a clone is typically annoying enough that I stick with the original 
> unless there's a compelling reason (I do use Ncat when I need --ssl, 
> among other things).
>
> I would say that, where possible and where it wouldn't break other 
> things, the commands and syntax from any of the previous versions should 
> be implemented in addition to the new ways.
>
> Fortunately, that's pretty much what David/Fyodor agreed to in the first 
> place -- supporting both methods of passing the arguments. So, life's 
> good? :)
>
> Ron
> _______________________________________________
> Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
> http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
> Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/

Attachment: _bin
Description:

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