Netcat: UDP connections don't terminate?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
A simple example, here's my server/host:
nc -ul 192.168.0.2 54
And the client:
echo "test" | nc -u 192.168.0.2 54
The server will intercept the "test" message, but nc
doesn't close. It just remains open until I press Enter or Ctrl+c. Is it possible to have it terminate automatically? Or perhaps include something in the clients message to signify that the transmission has ended?
nc --version
Ncat: Version 7.70 ( https://nmap.org/ncat )
I'm using Debian and macOS.
debian ubuntu osx netcat udp
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
A simple example, here's my server/host:
nc -ul 192.168.0.2 54
And the client:
echo "test" | nc -u 192.168.0.2 54
The server will intercept the "test" message, but nc
doesn't close. It just remains open until I press Enter or Ctrl+c. Is it possible to have it terminate automatically? Or perhaps include something in the clients message to signify that the transmission has ended?
nc --version
Ncat: Version 7.70 ( https://nmap.org/ncat )
I'm using Debian and macOS.
debian ubuntu osx netcat udp
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
A simple example, here's my server/host:
nc -ul 192.168.0.2 54
And the client:
echo "test" | nc -u 192.168.0.2 54
The server will intercept the "test" message, but nc
doesn't close. It just remains open until I press Enter or Ctrl+c. Is it possible to have it terminate automatically? Or perhaps include something in the clients message to signify that the transmission has ended?
nc --version
Ncat: Version 7.70 ( https://nmap.org/ncat )
I'm using Debian and macOS.
debian ubuntu osx netcat udp
New contributor
A simple example, here's my server/host:
nc -ul 192.168.0.2 54
And the client:
echo "test" | nc -u 192.168.0.2 54
The server will intercept the "test" message, but nc
doesn't close. It just remains open until I press Enter or Ctrl+c. Is it possible to have it terminate automatically? Or perhaps include something in the clients message to signify that the transmission has ended?
nc --version
Ncat: Version 7.70 ( https://nmap.org/ncat )
I'm using Debian and macOS.
debian ubuntu osx netcat udp
debian ubuntu osx netcat udp
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked Nov 18 at 23:07
user321630
362
362
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
While TCP has a concept of connections that have a beginning and an end, UDP does not have that. UDP is a connectionless protocol: an UDP receiver simply waits for incoming packets in a specified UDP port and outputs the content of any arriving UDP packets.
The receiving nc
has no clue about how many packets might be incoming, nor whether those packets should all be coming in from the same host, or from several hosts: it simply receives anything that arrives to the specified UDP port and outputs the contents of the UDP packets to standard output without parsing it in any way until the nc
process is interrupted.
There is not even any built-in guarantee that any packets sent by the client/sender are received in the same order at the receiver end: packets might be lost or reordered on the way. UDP makes no attempt to fix that: it's the job of the thing that is using UDP to deal with all those issues (or ignore them) as appropriate for its purposes.
You might decide on a specific string, make it mean "end of data" and arrange for another script at the listening end to parse the incoming data and kill the listening nc
process when that string is received. In that way, you'll start building your own (perhaps very simple) protocol on top of UDP. And that is exactly what UDP was designed for.
In a nutshell, the answer to "Is it possible to have nc -ul
terminate automatically?" is "No, unless you make something that does it."
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
netcat
has the option -W
:
-W recvlimit Terminate after receiving a number of packets
So:
nc -ulW 1 192.168.0.2 54
But you are using ncat
. You can use this workaround:
nc -ul 192.168.0.2 54 -c 'dd count=1 bs=100000 >&3' 3>&1
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
While TCP has a concept of connections that have a beginning and an end, UDP does not have that. UDP is a connectionless protocol: an UDP receiver simply waits for incoming packets in a specified UDP port and outputs the content of any arriving UDP packets.
The receiving nc
has no clue about how many packets might be incoming, nor whether those packets should all be coming in from the same host, or from several hosts: it simply receives anything that arrives to the specified UDP port and outputs the contents of the UDP packets to standard output without parsing it in any way until the nc
process is interrupted.
There is not even any built-in guarantee that any packets sent by the client/sender are received in the same order at the receiver end: packets might be lost or reordered on the way. UDP makes no attempt to fix that: it's the job of the thing that is using UDP to deal with all those issues (or ignore them) as appropriate for its purposes.
You might decide on a specific string, make it mean "end of data" and arrange for another script at the listening end to parse the incoming data and kill the listening nc
process when that string is received. In that way, you'll start building your own (perhaps very simple) protocol on top of UDP. And that is exactly what UDP was designed for.
In a nutshell, the answer to "Is it possible to have nc -ul
terminate automatically?" is "No, unless you make something that does it."
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
While TCP has a concept of connections that have a beginning and an end, UDP does not have that. UDP is a connectionless protocol: an UDP receiver simply waits for incoming packets in a specified UDP port and outputs the content of any arriving UDP packets.
The receiving nc
has no clue about how many packets might be incoming, nor whether those packets should all be coming in from the same host, or from several hosts: it simply receives anything that arrives to the specified UDP port and outputs the contents of the UDP packets to standard output without parsing it in any way until the nc
process is interrupted.
There is not even any built-in guarantee that any packets sent by the client/sender are received in the same order at the receiver end: packets might be lost or reordered on the way. UDP makes no attempt to fix that: it's the job of the thing that is using UDP to deal with all those issues (or ignore them) as appropriate for its purposes.
You might decide on a specific string, make it mean "end of data" and arrange for another script at the listening end to parse the incoming data and kill the listening nc
process when that string is received. In that way, you'll start building your own (perhaps very simple) protocol on top of UDP. And that is exactly what UDP was designed for.
In a nutshell, the answer to "Is it possible to have nc -ul
terminate automatically?" is "No, unless you make something that does it."
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
While TCP has a concept of connections that have a beginning and an end, UDP does not have that. UDP is a connectionless protocol: an UDP receiver simply waits for incoming packets in a specified UDP port and outputs the content of any arriving UDP packets.
The receiving nc
has no clue about how many packets might be incoming, nor whether those packets should all be coming in from the same host, or from several hosts: it simply receives anything that arrives to the specified UDP port and outputs the contents of the UDP packets to standard output without parsing it in any way until the nc
process is interrupted.
There is not even any built-in guarantee that any packets sent by the client/sender are received in the same order at the receiver end: packets might be lost or reordered on the way. UDP makes no attempt to fix that: it's the job of the thing that is using UDP to deal with all those issues (or ignore them) as appropriate for its purposes.
You might decide on a specific string, make it mean "end of data" and arrange for another script at the listening end to parse the incoming data and kill the listening nc
process when that string is received. In that way, you'll start building your own (perhaps very simple) protocol on top of UDP. And that is exactly what UDP was designed for.
In a nutshell, the answer to "Is it possible to have nc -ul
terminate automatically?" is "No, unless you make something that does it."
While TCP has a concept of connections that have a beginning and an end, UDP does not have that. UDP is a connectionless protocol: an UDP receiver simply waits for incoming packets in a specified UDP port and outputs the content of any arriving UDP packets.
The receiving nc
has no clue about how many packets might be incoming, nor whether those packets should all be coming in from the same host, or from several hosts: it simply receives anything that arrives to the specified UDP port and outputs the contents of the UDP packets to standard output without parsing it in any way until the nc
process is interrupted.
There is not even any built-in guarantee that any packets sent by the client/sender are received in the same order at the receiver end: packets might be lost or reordered on the way. UDP makes no attempt to fix that: it's the job of the thing that is using UDP to deal with all those issues (or ignore them) as appropriate for its purposes.
You might decide on a specific string, make it mean "end of data" and arrange for another script at the listening end to parse the incoming data and kill the listening nc
process when that string is received. In that way, you'll start building your own (perhaps very simple) protocol on top of UDP. And that is exactly what UDP was designed for.
In a nutshell, the answer to "Is it possible to have nc -ul
terminate automatically?" is "No, unless you make something that does it."
answered Nov 19 at 8:29
telcoM
14.3k11842
14.3k11842
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
netcat
has the option -W
:
-W recvlimit Terminate after receiving a number of packets
So:
nc -ulW 1 192.168.0.2 54
But you are using ncat
. You can use this workaround:
nc -ul 192.168.0.2 54 -c 'dd count=1 bs=100000 >&3' 3>&1
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
netcat
has the option -W
:
-W recvlimit Terminate after receiving a number of packets
So:
nc -ulW 1 192.168.0.2 54
But you are using ncat
. You can use this workaround:
nc -ul 192.168.0.2 54 -c 'dd count=1 bs=100000 >&3' 3>&1
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
netcat
has the option -W
:
-W recvlimit Terminate after receiving a number of packets
So:
nc -ulW 1 192.168.0.2 54
But you are using ncat
. You can use this workaround:
nc -ul 192.168.0.2 54 -c 'dd count=1 bs=100000 >&3' 3>&1
netcat
has the option -W
:
-W recvlimit Terminate after receiving a number of packets
So:
nc -ulW 1 192.168.0.2 54
But you are using ncat
. You can use this workaround:
nc -ul 192.168.0.2 54 -c 'dd count=1 bs=100000 >&3' 3>&1
answered Nov 19 at 8:54
user23013
457311
457311
add a comment |
add a comment |
user321630 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user321630 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user321630 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user321630 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482632%2fnetcat-udp-connections-dont-terminate%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown