Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? [SCAN BUDDIES]
From: Brandon Enright <bmenrigh () ucsd edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:14:21 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:00:08 -0700 David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
Now with the --initial-rtt-timeout: $ sudo ./nmap --datadir ./ -p- -T5 -v -d -PN -n --initial-rtt-timeout 50 132.239.7.132 SYN Stealth Scan Timing: About 0.18% done Current sending rates: 33.81 packets / s, 1472.89 bytes / s. Of course, the buddy was *much* faster than this.I see, it also has to do with the congestion window (number of probes allowed to be outstanding at once). Just like with the RTT, hosts with no responses can take their congestion window from the global group (HostScanStats::getTiming). The scan buddy allows the global congestion window to grow. My guess is that combining --min-parallelism with --initial-rtt-timeout would give you comparable speeds. With -d3 you can get an output of the current congestion window size. It looks like **TIMING STATS** (0.7920s): IP, probes active/freshportsleft/retry_stack/outstanding/retranwait/onbench, cwnd/ccthresh/delay, timeout/srtt/rttvar/ Groupstats (1/1 incomplete): 49/*/*/*/*/* 49.75/75/* 154278/66678/21900 Here the congestion window has a size of 49.75. David Fifield
Bingo. I ran: $ time sudo nmap -v -d3 -p- -T5 -PN -n 132.239.7.132,131 --open 2>&1 | egrep -A 1 'TIMING STATS' | tail -n 2 The last stats were: **TIMING STATS** (25.0050s): IP, probes active/freshportsleft/retry_stack/outstanding/retranwait/onbench, cwnd/ccthresh/delay, timeout/srtt/rttvar/ Groupstats (1/2 incomplete): 0/*/*/*/*/* 300.00/237/* 50000/268/26 I then ran (without the buddy): $ time sudo nmap -v -d3 -p- -T5 -PN -n 132.239.7.132 --initial-rtt-timeout 50 --min-parallelism 300 --open 2>&1 | egrep -A 1 'TIMING STATS' | tail -n 2 The scans finished within a second of each other. Brandon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkk1z2MACgkQqaGPzAsl94I9BgCcDNHy8FIqNQ0KNcY5SmWrdqO3 hfYAn2GAN8xj86CbiKsYqgPSdjqEBApo =QjJN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://SecLists.Org
Current thread:
- Desired improvements in Nmap performance? David Fifield (Nov 30)
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? sara fink (Dec 01)
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? DePriest, Jason R. (Dec 01)
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? Brandon Enright (Dec 02)
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? [SCAN BUDDIES] Brandon Enright (Dec 02)
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? [SCAN BUDDIES] David Fifield (Dec 02)
- Re: [CAPS] Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? [SCAN BUDDIES] Brandon Enright (Dec 02)
- Re: [CAPS] Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? [SCAN BUDDIES] David Fifield (Dec 02)
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? [SCAN BUDDIES] Brandon Enright (Dec 02)
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? [SCAN BUDDIES] Brandon Enright (Dec 02)
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? [FASTER IS SLOWER] David Fifield (Dec 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? Rob Nicholls (Dec 01)
- Re: Desired improvements in Nmap performance? sara fink (Dec 01)