Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:50:46AM -0800, Fyodor wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:19:52PM +0100, GomoR wrote:
> >
> > Also, two benchmarks versus Nmap have been done:
> > http://www.phocean.net/index.php/post/2006/12/17/SinFP
> > http://www.computerdefense.org/?p=173
> 
> Independent benchmark results can be useful, but I'm afraid that those
> two are rather poor.  The first one uses Nmap 4.10 (first generation
> OS detection, released in June) rather than 4.20 with 2nd gen OS
> detection.  The second one uses --osscan-guess on Nmap 4.03 and the
> equivalent option (-H) on SinFP.  Then he _doesn't_ include that
> option in the 4.20 results.  So it makes Nmap 4.03 look better than
> 4.20, just because he used more appropriate command-line flags for
> 4.03.

Yes. I find it dommageable also. I discussed with Phocean.net 
guy about that, maybe he will rebuild his tests using 
Nmap 4.20.

I transfer your message to the guy.

-- 
  ^  ___  ___             http://www.GomoR.org/          <-+
  | / __ |__/          Systems & Security Engineer         |
  | \__/ |  \     ---[ zsh$ alias psed='perl -pe ' ]---    |
  +-->  Net::Frame <=> http://search.cpan.org/~gomor/  <---+

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org