Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check?
From: Solar Designer <solar () openwall com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:14:58 +0400
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:15:00PM -0600, David Fifield wrote:
I tried to find an old Linux to test it with. I tried a Linux 2.4 live CD but Nmap wouldn't run compiled against a newer Glibc, even compiled statically. I compiled it under a 2.6.8.1 live CD from 2004, and version detection, NSE, and Ncat worked without any problem.
You can try an Owl live CD, which currently uses Linux 2.4.37.2-ow1 (yes, we're that conservative, although this is about to change), but it also includes development tools working right off the live CD and capable of building the latest Nmap from source. Moreover, Nmap 5.00 is there, in three forms: installed on the live CD, an RPM package for installs onto hard drives, and a source code tarball (also, there are our patches on top of Nmap 5.00 in the native tree). http://www.openwall.com/Owl/DOWNLOAD.shtml The latest is Owl-current-20090718-i586.iso.gz (422 MB), available for example from this mirror: ftp://ftp.fr.openwall.com/pub/Owl/current/iso/ (some other mirrors are yet to pick it up, though they have 20090716, which also has Nmap 5.00 - just not with our latest fixes yet). If you do try this out and run into any issues, no matter how minor, please do let me know and I'll be happy to help (preferably on the owl-users mailing list, although this is by no means a requirement). I could also try on a Linux 2.0.40 / libc 5 / gcc 2.7.2.3 machine (yes, still in use for over 10 years now), but I doubt that recent Nmap will build there, and I will hardly have time to fix Nmap to make it build. ;-( Alexander _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://SecLists.Org
Current thread:
- Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check? David Fifield (Jul 14)
- Re: Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check? David Fifield (Jul 18)
- Re: Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check? Kris Katterjohn (Jul 18)
- Re: Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check? David Fifield (Jul 18)
- Re: Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check? David Fifield (Jul 18)
- Re: Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check? Kris Katterjohn (Jul 18)
- Re: Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check? Solar Designer (Jul 19)
- Re: Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check? David Fifield (Jul 21)
- Re: Why the "Linux goofiness" socket writability check? David Fifield (Jul 18)