Re: CALL FOR TESTING: new port scanning subsystem (allows scanning behind proxies, including Tor!)

[Jacek Wielemborek <d33tah () gmail com>]

W dniu 04.07.2015 o 23:57, David Fifield pisze:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 11:16:34PM +0200, Jacek Wielemborek wrote:
> > W dniu 04.07.2015 o 23:12, David Fifield pisze:
> > > It worked for me. Without a proxy, it took 3.95 seconds to find 3 open
> > > ports, 6 filtered, and 991 closed. With a Tor proxy, it took 155 seconds
> > > to find 3 open ports and 997 closed|filtered ports.
> >
> > Thanks for testing, David! The results are a bit worrying though. Does
> > your ISP filter port 3006? Are you getting back consistent -sT results
> > with no proxy?
>
> I ran a few times without a proxy and got inconsistent filtered results.
>
> I ran again with a proxy and this time it took longer, 811 seconds.
>
> Ordinary SYN scan finds only ports 139 and 445 filtered. (After a
> curiously long time, 274 seconds.)

Thanks for testing, David. Unfortunately, the results are very
disappointing - looks like my patch produces false negatives and has
timing problems, which sounds like a critical bug. :/

This is strange because I didn't touch the congestion control code. Do I
recall correctly that it was written by you? This is my second attempt
at debugging my issue and I failed to find the root cause. If you could
find some time, could you take a second look at the patch and the
results and share your thoughts if you happen to have any ideas of what
could be wrong? It's my little dream to get this thing working properly
and integrated.

Cheers,
d33tah

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/