Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: nmap 3.70 - ultra_scan() -- feature or flaw?
From: Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:57:12 -0700
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:40:54PM -0400, Matt Repicky wrote:
After reading the changelog and man pages I finally figured out that the max_hostgroup is my best option to getting back to the single scan functionality of nmap 3.5*. Is there any better way to allow the parallelism to continue while getting usable output should it run into a bad target halfway?
Have you tried the --host_timeout option? Tell it how long you are willing to wait, and the slow hosts will timeout while you still get data from the responsive ones. For example, --host_timeout 3600000 will give up on any host that takes more than an hour. Cheers, -F --------------------------------------------------------------------- For help using this (nmap-dev) mailing list, send a blank email to nmap-dev-help () insecure org . List archive: http://seclists.org
Current thread:
- nmap 3.70 - ultra_scan() -- feature or flaw? Matt Repicky (Oct 12)
- Re: nmap 3.70 - ultra_scan() -- feature or flaw? Fyodor (Oct 12)
- Re: nmap 3.70 - ultra_scan() -- feature or flaw? Nils Magnus (Oct 12)
- Re: sig handler (was: nmap 3.70 - ultra_scan()) Brett Campbell (Oct 12)
- Re: nmap 3.70 - ultra_scan() -- feature or flaw? Nils Magnus (Oct 12)
- Re: nmap 3.70 - ultra_scan() -- feature or flaw? Fyodor (Oct 12)