   Raw Packet Access (Good/Bad)
  With Windows XP allowing raw packet access alot of things which were only possible on Linux came with reach of home users and kids.Lot of DoS tools are now possible on Windows which have much more power.And anyway to read packets a program has to sniff at all the packets which come to the comp,weird.Anybody got any ideas why Microsoft did this? or of any benifits.Also there are questions poping up on fourms about raw packet access,ARP etc. which are well not exactly, well directed to education.   
  Raw access has been available a long time. What do you think Ethereal has been using all this time, for example?Security through obscurity never works.;  Oh yes,Security through obscurity never works.But the kids who I am thinking of would not have even known about  Ethereal.Most fellows just copy paste code and use a few tidbits form here and there.But What I was asking was why Microsoft decided to put raw packet access in,and the funny way of recving packets (sniff and find your packet way) and if there was any positive use for that, from the security or funtionality point of viewIf Security is a Gate,on which side are you ?, when it's a standalone on a grassy plain with no stones;  There is more to networking than just IP/UDP/TCP.  Winsock doesn't support every protocol in the world.  The only way to be able to write apps that speak these protocols is if you have raw socket access.Network sniffers are invaluable tools for diagnosing networking problems.  You really need raw support for at least reads to create one.Unless you can write raw sockets there will never be any research in new network protocols (i.e. IPv6).High powered corporations want it.  Microsoft really really wants them to move to NT and away from whatever Unix dialect they're probably using today.  Politics, marketing, and lots and lots of money are at stake.Not having raw sockets solves nothing.  The scripts the script kiddies follow will be a bit longer.  Big deal.In short, there are lots of good reasons to have it and not having doesn't increase actual security, it only increases perceived security.  This is nice for politicians that want to appease the masses by "doing something about the problem" or managers that want to stick thier heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away but if anything it just makes it easier to get away with stuff.;  Microsoft does it again eh?True enough,raw packet access can be useful.How long do you think it will take for corps to leave unix?I really dont feel it's going to take place very soon,considering what they might have invested.Quite true its more of politics,what Microsoft might be really worries about is the long term future, with more kids interested in Linux because of the features (control,power...) it offers for fun, education etc ....They might be afraid that stuff like that might encourage more people to use linux, get fimilar with it, and the next generation even more into it.Possibly that's why M$ threw in raw packets when lots of new about security was going on.Agreed,kiddies will always be there.So will virus writes.If they disappear Security Corps might even "pay" them. ;-).Sure funny, what business do to survive.Security was Created so (In_Security) could be possible