Greetings.
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:38:55 +0200 123 wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:58:36AM +0800, Kai Hendry wrote:
> > https://bitbucket.org/noname/netscan/ is a 404, where does it live now?
>
> I have reuploaded portscan[1]. Host discovery can be done with other
> tools such as fping[2].
>
Thanks, I was wondering where it went after the suck of nmap 6.0 landed.
How do I use portscan if I just want to check in the same way I have
done in the past with nmap, what ports are open on a machine? IIUC
portscan has to specify ports individually which is a little
cumbersome. Be good if it wa
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:58:36AM +0800, Kai Hendry wrote:
> https://bitbucket.org/noname/netscan/ is a 404, where does it live now?
I have reuploaded portscan[1]. Host discovery can be done with other
tools such as fping[2].
I also uploaded another tool[3] for converting IPv4 CIDR notation to
I
Hghub moved from trying to replace github to support hggit extension.
Check hghub.org with few lines you can mirror hg repos in git. I think that a
github mirror of suckless repos would be interesting
On May 22, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 20:58, Kai Hendry wrote:
Greetings.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:45:18 +0200 Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 20:58, Kai Hendry wrote:
> > I'm a github fan boy. Thinking of mirroring the projects on
> > https://github.com/organizations/scklss since
> > https://github.com/organizations/suckless is taken.
>
> Hypes come
On 22 May 2012 20:58, Kai Hendry wrote:
> I'm a github fan boy. Thinking of mirroring the projects on
> https://github.com/organizations/scklss since
> https://github.com/organizations/suckless is taken.
Hypes come and go... suckless.org will remain self-hosted.
Cheers,
Anselm
https://bitbucket.org/noname/netscan/ is a 404, where does it live now?
I'm a github fan boy. Thinking of mirroring the projects on
https://github.com/organizations/scklss since
https://github.com/organizations/suckless is taken.
Kind regards,
well then that must be a wise lawyer cause he's as right as he could get...
On 2/26/10, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> I think he meant - prevent him from using their modified, re-released
> version. The BSD license has a similar "problem."
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:59 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.
I think he meant - prevent him from using their modified, re-released
version. The BSD license has a similar "problem."
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:59 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> How exactly would they prevent you from using it?!
>
> On 2/26/10, James PIC wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 2,
How exactly would they prevent you from using it?!
On 2/26/10, James PIC wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 6:39 PM, anonymous wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 11:46:36AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM, anonymous wrote:
>>> > On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 02:04:37PM +0100,
James PIC :
> Our lawyer convinced me to stop releasing under WTFPL, because it
> doesn't prevent some evil bastard to re license my sources and prevent
> me from even using it.
>
> But that's the real world where people actually do care about licenses :)
>
> --
> http://jamespic.com/contact
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 6:39 PM, anonymous wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 11:46:36AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM, anonymous wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 02:04:37PM +0100, hiro wrote:
>> >> licenses are stupid
>> >>
>> >
>> > I agree. What should be done to
IP ranges are not supported (only single hosts and CIDR) but there is a
(public domain) tool that can convert IP ranges into CIDR:
http://www.spamshield.org/cidr-convert.c
dump_tree function has a bug: "v >> 24" should be written as "v >> 24 &
0xff" instead. After fixing it this tool can be used a
Looks simple and clean.
Makefile should contain uninstall rule:
diff -r 24c81cd5e477 makefile
--- a/makefile Sun Jan 03 15:37:05 2010 +0300
+++ b/makefile Sun Jan 03 19:45:35 2010 +0200
@@ -15,6 +15,9 @@
install: $(PROG)
cp $(PROG) $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/bin/$(PROG)
+uninstall:
+
Thanks for these fixes. I have applied them and fixed bug (lost break
inside switch) while reviewing the code.
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:35:44AM +0300, anonymous wrote:
> Something from gcc manpage:
>
> "It makes a difference where in the command you write this option; the
> linker searches and processes libraries and object files in the order
> they are specified. Thus, foo.o -lz bar.o searches library
Something from gcc manpage:
"It makes a difference where in the command you write this option; the
linker searches and processes libraries and object files in the order
they are specified. Thus, foo.o -lz bar.o searches library z after
file foo.o but before bar.o. If bar.o refers to functions in
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 09:38:36PM +0300, anonymous wrote:
> > --- makefile2010-01-02 18:56:40.0 +0100
> > +++ makefile.patched 2010-01-02 18:58:08.0 +0100
> > @@ -13 +13 @@
> > - $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) $(OBJS) -o $(PROG)
> > + $(CC) $(OBJS) -o $(PROG) $(LDFLAGS)
>
>
> so I needed the following patch to compile it over here on my (lunar-)linux
> box.
>
> --- makefile 2010-01-02 18:56:40.0 +0100
> +++ makefile.patched 2010-01-02 18:58:08.0 +0100
> @@ -13 +13 @@
> - $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) $(OBJS) -o $(PROG)
> + $(CC) $(OBJS) -o $(PROG) $(LDFLAG
ev'ning everyone,
i got some obscure behaviour of gcc/icc over here,
is there anyone able to tell my why this happens/works?
> v4hn 18:52:19 ~/repos/netscan $ gcc -lpthread -lpcap *.o -o portscan
network.o: In function `default_device':
network.c:(.text+0x5d5): undefined reference to `pcap_lookup
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 11:46:36AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM, anonymous wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 02:04:37PM +0100, hiro wrote:
> >> licenses are stupid
> >>
> >
> > I agree. What should be done to place it into the public domain?
> > Will adding of "/* Pu
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 07:37:29PM +0300, anonymous wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 02:04:37PM +0100, hiro wrote:
> > licenses are stupid
> >
>
> I agree. What should be done to place it into the public domain?
> Will adding of "/* Public Domain */" into every source file be enough?
>
>
You m
> Here is a patch to let it build on OpenBSD:
>
> --- parse.c.origSat Jan 2 12:54:18 2010
> +++ parse.c Sat Jan 2 12:54:01 2010
> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> +#include
> +#include
> #include
>
> #include
> @@ -5,6 +7,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #include
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM, anonymous wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 02:04:37PM +0100, hiro wrote:
>> licenses are stupid
>>
>
> I agree. What should be done to place it into the public domain?
> Will adding of "/* Public Domain */" into every source file be enough?
Some parts of the world
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 02:04:37PM +0100, hiro wrote:
> licenses are stupid
>
I agree. What should be done to place it into the public domain?
Will adding of "/* Public Domain */" into every source file be enough?
licenses are stupid
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Colin Didier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 09:47:19AM +0300, anonymous wrote:
>> Ok, code is here: http://bitbucket.org/noname/netscan/
>
> Nice, but there is no license on the source code files.
>
> Here is a patch to let it build on OpenBS
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 09:47:19AM +0300, anonymous wrote:
> Ok, code is here: http://bitbucket.org/noname/netscan/
Nice, but there is no license on the source code files.
Here is a patch to let it build on OpenBSD:
--- parse.c.origSat Jan 2 12:54:18 2010
+++ parse.c Sat Jan 2 12:5
Ok, code is here: http://bitbucket.org/noname/netscan/
> Why don't you use mercurial?
>
Bitbucket is Mercurial hosting I think. If it is ok, I can create
account there.
Why don't you use mercurial?
On 12/31/09, anonymous wrote:
>> sourceforge? are you joking?
>>
>
> Maybe http://bitbucket.org/, it is ok? What can you recommend?
>
>
>
> sourceforge? are you joking?
>
Maybe http://bitbucket.org/, it is ok? What can you recommend?
sourceforge? are you joking?
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:22:27 +
Rob wrote:
> Will you be uploading the source anywhere, like sourceforge?
>
Will you be uploading the source anywhere, like sourceforge?
Removing retransmission will result into some overhead for restarting
the program, processing text output, resolving DNS names. But with DNS
caching it should not be too high.
Maybe I should not compare my program to nmap, it focus on speed, while
my programs should focus on simplicity.
I like your idea of splitting everything up, for example, I'd find the
discover program by itself very useful, as my router's DNS at home
doesn't let you resolve hostnames of computers inside the network, so
I have to log into the router every time.
2009/12/26 anonymous
> Now I think: should I i
When I wanted to learn more about networks, I started to write
a simple port scanner. Goal was to follow unix-way, so I implemened it
as a program that gets list of hosts as it's arguments and output
table of ports in the format similar to unix `ls` program.
Now I have implemented connect scan and
36 matches
Mail list logo
