Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: New Nmap vs SinFP benchmark


From: doug () hcsw org
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 23:18:04 -0800

Hi Hans!

Thanks for giving Qscan a try. I've noticed this behaviour too and it
is an example of the major difference between Qscan and other Nmap
scans (and, come to think of it, most network security tools): Qscan
is a statistical test rather than a deterministic test.

In your example I think one of the round-trips that Nmap measured was
probably unusually above the mean which causes an extremely high
standard deviation:

On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 06:22:33PM -1100 or thereabouts, Hans Nilsson wrote:
         Target:Port  Fam  uRTT  +/- Stddev  Loss%
    83.137.9.33:80    A    44.8  +/-  28.5     0
    83.137.9.33:113   A    35.0  +/-   0.1     0

This could be for any number of possible reasons, ie:

- Unexpected increase in network activity (increase in network queues).

- An operating system was in an important context switch and the
  packet was delayed inordinatley long. The OS could be either yours,
  your target's or any routers/NAT machines in between.

- The seemingly random nature of the universe. :)

It makes sense, at least to me, that packet round-trip times aren't
perfectly normal: There are stronger lower boundaries than a normal
distribution would imply (and the mean is likely quite close to this
boundary) and we sometimes find round-trip values that would be
fantastically unlikley if round-trip times were really normally
distributed.

As I mention in the "Future Work" section of the QSCAN file, I think
a median filter is the logical next step:

o The algorithm could possibly be improved. Some sort of median
  filter would be helpful in throwing out packets that are
  obviously outliers and not representative of the packet delays.

Regarding your suggestions on the detection of packet forwarding devices
by looking at window sizes and other TCP/IP attributes - These are all
great ideas but I believe their scope is outside of Qscan.

Best,

Doug

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org

Current thread: