Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: [Bulk] Re: [RFC] Crazy idea for deferring hosts in progress to a later hostgroup
From: Gisle Vanem <gvanem () yahoo no>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 15:02:10 +0200
David Fifield wrote:
No targets are considered slow. (No targets are deferred.) That's what we have now. Slow targets block the flow and prevent other targets from starting.
Speaking of "slow", the http-slowloris-check.nse script seems to have an issue. I know next to nothing about LUA, but on this command: nmap -p80 -P0 -sT --script=http-slowloris-check.nse 93.184.219.29 (scam-site at www.ibmoffice.webeden.co.uk) results in this: NSE Timing: About 0.00% done NSE: http-slowloris-check against 93.184.219.29:80 threw an error! EOF stack traceback: [C]: in function 'try' f:\MingW32\src\inet\nmap/scripts\http-slowloris-check.nse:116: in function <f:\MingW32\src\inet\nmap/scripts\http-slowloris-check.nse:107> NSE Timing: About 33.33% done; ETC: 12:47 (0:03:02 remaining) NSE: http-slowloris-check against 93.184.219.29:80 threw an error! EOF stack traceback: [C]: in function 'try' f:\MingW32\src\inet\nmap/scripts\http-slowloris-check.nse:135: in function <f:\MingW32\src\inet\nmap/scripts\http-slowloris-check.nse:124> NSE: [http-slowloris-check 93.184.219.29:80] Time difference is: 10 ... Nmap scan report for 93.184.219.29 Host is up, received user-set (0.047s latency). Scanned at 2015-04-05 12:43:10 CET for 101s PORT STATE SERVICE REASON 80/tcp open http syn-ack | http-slowloris-check: | VULNERABLE: | Slowloris DOS attack | State: LIKELY VULNERABLE -------- Not sure what happens. But since I get a "LIKELY" result, I assume the script-error is not important. Or maybe this is a false positive? Can someone try the above command on Linux? -- --gv _______________________________________________ Sent through the dev mailing list https://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- Re: [RFC] Crazy idea for deferring hosts in progress to a later hostgroup Fyodor (Apr 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: [RFC] Crazy idea for deferring hosts in progress to a later hostgroup David Fifield (Apr 03)
- Re: [Bulk] Re: [RFC] Crazy idea for deferring hosts in progress to a later hostgroup Gisle Vanem (Apr 05)