Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: SMB parallelization
From: Brandon Enright <bmenrigh () ucsd edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 00:45:02 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:48:12 -0700 David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:02:30PM -0500, Ron wrote:I'm finishing off a 15-hour day of SMB work, but it's been incredibly productive! This is my final submission for now, I hope I can still type coherently. :)
[...]
I think I understand the technque you are using. I would be concerned that it could fail just by chance with large numbers of connections, but your testing with Brandon shows that it's not much of a worry. Feel free to commit it. David Fifield
I was mindful of this in my scan. I set --min and --max-parallelism to 768 to prevent overloading select(). I assume that's still the right way to handle this -- if it isn't let me know. If you are under socket pressure, NSE and especially smb-* with this patch are very easy ways to run out of resources. Brandon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkylLxQACgkQqaGPzAsl94LHQQCfdX3bF0+1ZiFXDhP2g7iIIUZw iN8An0LEUMmqerfso7iA948gajbvWXcX =BSAC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- SMB parallelization Ron (Sep 23)
- Re: SMB parallelization Ron (Sep 23)
- Re: SMB parallelization David Fifield (Sep 29)
- Re: SMB parallelization Brandon Enright (Sep 30)