Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results
From: GomoR <nmap-hackers () gomor org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:18:07 +0100
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:50:46AM -0800, Fyodor wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:19:52PM +0100, GomoR wrote:Also, two benchmarks versus Nmap have been done: http://www.phocean.net/index.php/post/2006/12/17/SinFP http://www.computerdefense.org/?p=173Independent benchmark results can be useful, but I'm afraid that those two are rather poor. The first one uses Nmap 4.10 (first generation OS detection, released in June) rather than 4.20 with 2nd gen OS detection. The second one uses --osscan-guess on Nmap 4.03 and the equivalent option (-H) on SinFP. Then he _doesn't_ include that option in the 4.20 results. So it makes Nmap 4.03 look better than 4.20, just because he used more appropriate command-line flags for 4.03.
Yes. I find it dommageable also. I discussed with Phocean.net guy about that, maybe he will rebuild his tests using Nmap 4.20. I transfer your message to the guy. -- ^ ___ ___ 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
Current thread:
- SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results GomoR (Dec 21)
- Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results Fyodor (Dec 21)
- Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results doug (Dec 21)
- Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results DePriest, Jason R. (Dec 21)
- Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results GomoR (Dec 21)
- Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results GomoR (Dec 21)
- Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results doug (Dec 21)
- Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results Fyodor (Dec 21)