1211
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by speaker_hat@lemmy.one to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] becool@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

So, UDP just sends it out there and anyone can intercept it?

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 44 points 1 year ago

No. Both UDP and TCP can be intercepted the same. The difference is that UDP sends a packet to an address. But doesn't have any in built system to check that it arrived, that it arrived intact or to resend if it didn't. There's also no built in way to protect against spoofing or out of order packet delivery. But generally implementations will handle the ones that are important of those themselves.

TCP establishes a circuit, packets are sent, verified and resent if required until the original data, in the correct order is delivered to the application. Also there is some protection against spoofing with sequence numbering. The downside is that time sensitive data might be delayed because of the retransmission and re-assembling. Which is why time sensitive streams like VoIP are usually sent over UDP.

[-] Celivalg@iusearchlinux.fyi 13 points 1 year ago

Btw, on my device you sent the message -110min ago, not 110, -110

Welcome, traveler from the future

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 20 points 1 year ago

Yeah, this is a known interoperability thing between kbin and lemmy. So, I'm afraid I can't give you this week's lottery numbers ahead of time.

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

No. UDP is at the packet level. Interception is a different layer.

To use to today's language, UDP yeets the packets at you as fast as it can generate them.

It doesn't care if you catch any of them.

Don't yeet the baby.

[-] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 40 points 1 year ago

actually, do yeet the baby if you have an application with different needs. for example, if you want to play a game, you're better off yeeting 60 babies a second and just hope that whoever is on the side catches enough of them to get a smooth stream of babies, than making sure every baby is handed gently to the next person and get the whole line clogged up the moment anything disrupts it. if you just use the yeetomatic 3000 you're always getting fresh babies on the other end, a few might just be dropped in the process

[-] Marxine@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Getting a smooth stream of babies is a sentence that has no right in being this funny. I wheezed hard

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Don’t yeet the baby.

or at least care if you catch any of them.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 4 points 1 year ago

I mean generally, I don't think we yeet babies. We yeet lots of things, but usually not babies.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago
[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
[-] Parallax@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What do you mean interception is at a different layer? You can capture at any layer as long as the payload isn't encrypted, and if it is, you still get layers 1 through 4 (Physical, Link, Network, and Transport).

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 7 points 1 year ago

UDP is a transport protocol. OSI layer 4. It sits atop the packet (network/L3) layer which is where IP dictates where a packet is going. A broadcast or multicast IP address would mean it can be observed by many machines, but unicast is still the most common, and is routed to just one machine.

[-] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Is it like multicast or are they the same?

[-] thisbenzingring 7 points 1 year ago

It's not so much that anyone can intercept it, it's more that the sender just blasts it and no acknowledgement so there's lots of potential for loss

[-] Parallax@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

You'd have to be somewhere in the route from A to B to intercept it. But TCP is no different in that regard.

TCP is connection based so both sides need to agree to connect before data is exchanged. UDP is connectionless, so it will send data from A to B (and vice versa) regardless of if the other side is available.

[-] TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

From what I can tell yes. There's no established connection, the data is sort of just broadcasted.

Edit: I was operating under a misunderstanding, please refer to andrew's response.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 8 points 1 year ago

Broadcast would mean it's sent to anyone. UDP packets still usually have a unicast address and thus are routed by routers and switches to specific machines, but as a connectionless protocol, UDP never validates which, if any, packets are received by the recipient like TCP does. If any verification is needed that needs to be handled higher in the OSI stack. E.g. by the application layer.

[-] exscape@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

No no, it's not "broadcasted". It still has a fixed sender and receiver IP address, but UDP doesn't verify whether the receiver got the data or not. You can implement that over UDP, but you have to do it yourself.

With TCP, the packet will retransmitted automatically if the receiver didn't tell the sender "yep, I got it".

[-] UnverifiedAPK@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

No, instead of using TLS for encryption (like most TCP traffic) UDP will use things like DTLS and SIP

Or if you're asking about the actual transport it's more like TCP is going to your friend's house and calling your mom to let her know you're there vs UDP is going to their house and not calling.

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
1211 points (97.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

32611 readers
60 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS