Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: SoC: port state reasons
From: "Eddie Bell" <ejlbell () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:45:18 +0200
On 10/06/06, Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org> wrote:
Great points. In fact, I'm starting to worry that even showing the ttl in verbose mode may clutter things up too much. How about just placing the ttl in the XML output for now. Afterward, someone could potentially write the code to look for discrepancies where the TTL response differs between ports, then print a notice to normal output in that case.
Agreed, the ttl output combined with reasons and IP addresses overwhelms the output. I tend to think that we should probably print the
reason information to the XML output even if --reason wasn't specified, as it shouldn't take much more computation or inflate the filesize dramatically.
Thats good because a lot of the reason code assignments are not worth doing conditionally, so get executed even if --reason is not specified - eddie _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Current thread:
- SoC: port state reasons Eddie Bell (Jun 07)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman (Jun 07)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Fyodor (Jun 09)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Eddie Bell (Jun 10)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Martin Mačok (Jun 10)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Eddie Bell (Jun 10)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Fyodor (Jun 10)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Eddie Bell (Jun 10)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Fyodor (Jun 10)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Eddie Bell (Jun 10)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Fyodor (Jun 10)
- Re: SoC: port state reasons Fyodor (Jun 10)