Generally the Net-SNMP parser tries to be more lenient than strict.
Mostly because we like to try and load and use even broken MIBs to help
the end-users. However, MIB developers are very encouraged to make use
of a strict checker like smilint from the libsmi package when writing MIBs.
--
Wes H
Dear all:
The function getVarbinds(in parse.c) do not check the VB correct or not,
why?
Thanks.
--
Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500!
Tap into the largest installed PC base & get m
17, 2010 3:19 AM
To: Szudy Brett-CBS035
Cc: Net-SNMP coders
Subject: Re: question on net-snmp privacy
[ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP c
[ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy.
Keep discussions to the list, where others can both learn
and offer advice. Thanks. ]
On 16 F
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:45:50 +, Dave Shield
> said:
DS> This is a local policy decision - it's not inherent in the SNMP protocol.
And to make sure you understand completely: You can also configure the
VACM to only allow authenticated *and* encrypted packets.
Note that the USM/VA
On 16 February 2010 14:11, Bell, Adam wrote:
> So if vacm is enabled - it should reject unauthenticated read and writes?
The agent should accept/reject requests based on whatever the access
control configuration specifies.
If VACM is configured to allow unauthenticated requests,
then the age
Bell, Adam
Cc: Szudy Brett-CBS035; [email protected]
Subject: Re: question on net-snmp privacy
On 16 February 2010 13:41, Bell, Adam wrote:
> That is a huge security hole. In fact knowing this, we will have to
> add some kind of extension to explicitely disallow Any pac
Subject: Re: question on net-snmp privacy
On 15 February 2010 23:48, Szudy Brett-CBS035 wrote:
> It
> looks like in the code that in a message received the sec level bits
> only matter for validation when they are set --in ot
On 16 February 2010 13:41, Bell, Adam wrote:
> That is a huge security hole. In fact knowing this, we will have to add some
> kind of extension to explicitely disallow Any packet that is not
> authenticated.
Why?
If you configure the agent using
"rouser"
then this will reject any unauthent
On 15 February 2010 23:48, Szudy Brett-CBS035 wrote:
> It looks
> like in
> the code that in a message received the sec level bits only matter for
> validation when they are set --in other words, privacy & auth protocols
> are only
I have a question, and I found it asked before but not answered
satisfactorily. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? It looks like
in the code that in a message received the sec level bits only matter
for validation when they are set --in other words, privacy & auth
protocols are only checked
On 17/09/2007, Ashwin Gokhale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using net-snmp5.4.1 for implementing/supporting
> . both tables and scalars,
> . I was wondering if it is possible to use the
> same set of iterator (get/get-next) and handler
> functions for multiple OIDs.
The iterator hel
Hi,
I'm using net-snmp5.4.1 (with AgentX/SubAgent feature
turned on) and mib2c for implementing/supporting an
Enterprise MIB. My MIB has both tables and scalars,
and the managed data resides outside the agent's
context. I was wondering if it is possible to use the
same set of iterator (get/get-nex
13 matches
Mail list logo
