From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ee9e417a0701160418vc62148em72e4369b882ad8f8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:18:34 -0500
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alberto_Cort=E9s?=" <alcortes@it.uc3m.es>,
	"Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] snoopy thinks that the cpu command talks 9p
In-Reply-To: <20070116115900.GA16784@it.uc3m.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070116115900.GA16784@it.uc3m.es>
Cc:
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 03ef5b36-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Trying to understand how authentication works, I ended up using
> snoopy on a cpu connection, something like:
>
>     % snoopy -f 'tcp(sd=17010)'
>
> and, on another window:
>
>     % cpu
>
>
> This will give you lots of lines that looks like:
>
>     ninep(68656c6c6f203966616e7321)

Cpu *does* talk 9P, but it is usually encrypted 9P, and the
chance of 9P encrypting to an ASCII string is pretty low.

If you ran cpu -e none (not an option unless you compile
your own special copy of cpu) you would be able to see
the raw 9P traffic.

> I believe it should say something like:
>
>    unknown(68656c6c6f203966616e7321)
>
> or
>
>    unknown"helo 9fans"

There's not really any good option here, since the interesting
bits are encrypted, and saying ninep is not a lie, so I'm
inclined just to leave it alone.  There's certainly no point in
printing unknown("hello 9fans!"), since as I mentioned above,
it's either 9P or encrypted 9P, never plain text.

Russ