Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: [RFC] Should --open imply --defeat-rst-ratelimit?
From: Jacek Wielemborek <d33tah () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 21:22:17 +0200
W dniu 13.05.2015 o 21:16, Daniel Miller pisze:
If the user is only interested in open ports, shouldn't we avoid spending extra time determining closed vs filtered status? Dan
I like the idea, but I'd like to point out that we mention the port states in "Not shown: 94 closed ports, 4 filtered ports" message when using --open. Perhaps setting ports to closed|reset would be more intuitive here?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sent through the dev mailing list https://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- [RFC] Should --open imply --defeat-rst-ratelimit? Daniel Miller (May 13)
- Re: [RFC] Should --open imply --defeat-rst-ratelimit? Jacek Wielemborek (May 13)
- Re: [RFC] Should --open imply --defeat-rst-ratelimit? Fyodor (May 15)