Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark
From: Alan Jones <alan () ajsquared us>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:47:06 -0600
I have read a few of the other responses to this thread and have to say I was a a little surprised... I have not had a chance to put 4.2x though it's paces... only internal stuff so far, but from what I had read I thought 4.2x was supposed to handle NAT and proxy stuff better. Especially if it was a 1->1 NAT not a 1->many. I am surprised it would respond saying it did not know the finger print and give the option to submit a finger print. Either the fingerprint info would not be valid or only valid in that one case or we need to be submitting a bunch of NATed fingerprints and I am sure that is not wanted. Much of the world uses NAT as an additional form of a firewall even 1-1 Nat 1.2.3.4 -> 5.6.7.8. (I am not saying it enhances security that much but I know people using it...) I read about the possible -sQ option mentioned, but I don't think that does what most would be after. The basic ability to say what is sitting on the other side of a NATed box and what the firewall/proxy/router is doing in between. I think tests like these no matter how debated certain parts may be can be good to show where improvements may need to be made. In some cases improvements the program or in other cases improvements in the documentation (if the tester can't figure it out maybe a better description is needed for all). Alan GomoR wrote:
Hi, I told the author to re-test using latest Nmap, and here are the results: http://www.phocean.net/index.php/post/2006/12/24/Updated-%3A-SinFP-205-and-Nmap-420 Best regards,
_______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://SecLists.Org
Current thread:
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark, (continued)
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark Hans Nilsson (Dec 27)
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman (Dec 27)
- RE: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark Sina Bahram (Dec 27)
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark DePriest, Jason R. (Dec 28)
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark Hans Nilsson (Dec 28)
- RE: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark Sina Bahram (Dec 27)
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark doug (Dec 28)
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark Hans Nilsson (Dec 28)
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark doug (Dec 28)
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark Hans Nilsson (Dec 29)
- Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark GomoR (Dec 28)