Re: Long disjointed list of ports causing performance drop??

[Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org>]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:10:17PM -0800, Steve wrote:
>   1.  How is a large list of discontinuous ports handled by nmap vs
> a singe continuous list (1-1024)?  Could the first condition cause a
> larger memory requirement?

Memory usage is based on the total number of ports -- whether the list
is consecutive doesn't matter to Nmap.

>   2. Is there a difference in memory requirements if I use a list of IP's, one per line, vs a specific sequence 
> (10.10.10.10-255)?

No, it is basically the same.

>   3. Could the large list of ports require more memory as I work my
>      way through a relatively long list of IP's?   

A large list of ports will use more ram than a small list.  But it
shouldn't be too bad.  How much RAM is being taken up?  What version
of Nmap are you using?  Be sure it is 3.95 or later (actually, grabe
3.98BETA1 from
http://seclists.org/lists/nmap-dev/2006/Jan-Mar/0054.html ).

If you were using a version older than 3.95, please try 3.98BETA1 and
let us know if it helps.

Cheers,
-F


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