|
Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark: msg#00126security.nmap.devel
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 08:32:40PM -0300, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote: [..] > box, and group them. Then, you can use nmap again to only scan the ports that > belong to a certain > group only, and discover each OS separately. Well, by sending 8 probes, I do not see how you can be sure to hit only the target open port. It seems 'hope for the best' philosophy here. Results will be unreliable to me. -- ^ ___ ___ 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 |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | RE: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark: 00126, Sina Bahram |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: script udate broken: 00126, Diman Todorov |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmarki: 00126, Hans Nilsson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark: 00126, Alan Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |