Re: Tudor's Status Report - #15 of #17

[Tudor-Emil COMAN <tudor_emil.coman () cti pub ro>]

@Daniel<mailto:bonsaiviking () gmail com>

That was a mistake indeed, I was scanning the first 1000 ports.

I recalculated how long it should take to scan for 65536 ports and it looks like it would take a lot of time, I'm 
trying to see if I can do some significant improvements before starting again.

I'm probably going to end up scanning a random subset of those 115 million IP's.


@d33tah

I used research.nmap.org.


It has:

  *   Intel Xeon E3-1230 v1/2 (4-core)
  *   32GB RAM
  *   CentOS 7 OS
  *   2TB SATA drive
  *   1Gbps ethernet

Bandwidth utilization would fluctuate a lot but I've seen it go as high as 79 Mbps.

CPU would be at about 100%

Memory at 0.2% so about 640 Mbytes.


The scan was:

./nmap 0.0.0.0/0 --min-rate 140000 --min-hostgroup 8192 -T5 -n -Pn -p 80 --max-retries 0 &> /dev/null -oG mass.log -sS 
--excludefile /etc/zmap/blacklist.conf



________________________________
From: Jacek Wielemborek <d33tah () gmail com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 7:08:26 PM
To: Tudor-Emil COMAN; dev () nmap org
Subject: Re: Tudor's Status Report - #15 of #17

W dniu 09.08.2016 o 08:46, Tudor-Emil COMAN pisze:
> Hello folks,
>
>
>
> Scanning the entire internet on port 80 finished and took 353716.09 seconds.

Hi Tudor,

Four days, nice! What was the command you used? What were the specs of
the server you used and how much resources (bandwidth, transfer, memory)
did it use?

I'd love to hear more about this.

Cheers,
d33tah


_______________________________________________
Sent through the dev mailing list
https://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/