Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: exclude targets
From: David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:20:57 -0700
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 02:34:47PM +0100, Si Stransky wrote:
My salutations to all nmap followers, I have something going wrong with certain sorts of exclude targets.. see for example $ nmap -sL -n --exclude 10.0-253.0.1 10.250-255.0.22 .. nmap: TargetGroup.cc:459: int TargetGroup::get_next_host(sockaddr_storage*, size_t*): Assertion `ipsleft == 1' failed. Aborted $ nmap -sL -n -q --exclude 10.10.250-255.22 10.10.250-255.0-255 .. pine: TargetGroup.cc:459: int TargetGroup::get_next_host(sockaddr_storage*, size_t*): Assertion `ipsleft == 1' failed. Aborted $ nmap -sL -n -q --exclude 10.10.250-254.22 10.10.250-255.0-255 .. pine: TargetGroup.cc:465: int TargetGroup::get_next_host(sockaddr_storage*, size_t*): Assertion `ipsleft > 1' failed. Aborted $ nmap -sL -n -q --exclude *.10.250-255.22 10.10.250-255.0-255 .. pine: TargetGroup.cc:372: int TargetGroup::skip_range(TargetGroup::_octet_nums): Assertion `ipsleft + 1>= hosts_skipped' failed. Aborted Apart from the last example where the exclude range is actually greater than the whole scanning range and should be a discouraged use of the exclude option since it makes nmap calculate unneeded IPs, the others should be and actually are proper forms.
Thank you for this report and for the excellent test cases. I solved the problem in r16120. The problem was in an optimization to exclude groups that could fail when there wasn't a range in the final octet. After checking the exclude address 10.10.250.22 in the range 10.10.250-255.22 for example, the address would skip ahead to 10.10.252.22 instead of 10.10.251.22. This caused the internal count to get out of sync. David Fifield _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- exclude targets Si Stransky (Nov 07)
- Re: exclude targets David Fifield (Nov 17)
- Re: exclude targets David Fifield (Nov 17)