Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: performance issues
From: BlackHat.Info <blackhat () needguide com>
Date: 3 Apr 2002 03:33:34 -0800
huh? In my case, I've noticed fast scan performance averages ~300 seconds compare to BETA31 ~500secs. See nmap in action in www.blackhat.info project. Cheers. On Tue, 02 April 2002, "Andy Lutomirski" wrote:
Here's a good one: I run nmap -sS -P0 -n -r -v -d -d -p1-1000 <win2k box on local ethernet>, and it takes awhile. The debug shows that retries are needed. If I add --scan_delay 1, no (or very few) packets are dropped, and the scan completes much faster. I get the fastest results with --max_parallelism 1 (w/o scan_delay), but --max_parallelism 2 does not have nearly the same effect. If I add --win_norawsock, then the speeds are much increased without either max_parallelism or scan_delay, for --max_parallelism 1 is still the fastest. To add insult to injury, port 389 comes up filtered if and only if I do not set --win_nor (so that sends are over real raw sockets). WTF is happening? Andy Lutomirski
------------------------------- www.blackhat.info "just discovering insecurity" ------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- For help using this (nmap-dev) mailing list, send a blank email to nmap-dev-help () insecure org . List run by ezmlm-idx (www.ezmlm.org).
Current thread:
- Re: performance issues BlackHat . Info (Apr 03)