Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: [Branch] --ignore-after
From: Jay Bosamiya <jaybosamiya () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:55:31 +0530
On Wednesday 30 July 2014 05:47 PM, Jacek Wielemborek wrote:
Why would timing affect ouput at all?
The idea is to put it in the timing templates to increase the speed in scanning. If you are scanning a set of systems using -T5, you probably don't expect any system to have greater than 60 (say) ports open. It is much more likely that the system has portspoof [1] or something similar if more than 60 ports are open. There is no point in wasting time in scanning (or running service detection on) such a system.
I don't like completely skipping it in the list - the user should have a chance to notice that such a host is there so that she could e.g. re-scan it with -sV to get a more meaningful output.
I agree, however, I haven't modified Zenmap at all, yet. This is the reason it doesn't show up. I personally think showing the ignored hosts with a different colour (maybe a grey) might be best. Just to clarify: --ignore-after is not just an output modifying option. Its main purpose is to speed up scans when there is a possibility that the host might be using something similar to portspoof etc. Links: [1] http://portspoof.org/ _______________________________________________ Sent through the dev mailing list http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- [Branch] --ignore-after Jay Bosamiya (Jul 30)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Jacek Wielemborek (Jul 30)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Jay Bosamiya (Jul 30)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Fyodor (Aug 13)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Fyodor (Aug 16)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Jay Bosamiya (Aug 18)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Daniel Miller (Sep 17)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Jay Bosamiya (Sep 18)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Daniel Miller (Sep 18)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Fyodor (Aug 16)
- Re: [Branch] --ignore-after Jacek Wielemborek (Jul 30)