Re: Ncrack 0.01ALPHA released

[Toni Ruottu <toni.ruottu () iki fi>]

> Probably, the usage line should be changed to explicitly mention that a service
> specification is needed, though I think that it is fairly obvious since Ncrack
> is not a port scanner and specifically needs some particular service (or
> services) to attack.

Most people don't know which parts of nmap you used to implement
ncrack. Having all the port scanning functionality at hand you might
have used it. I don't think there is very good reasons for not finding
the services by port scanning, unless the user specifies something
more specific. Also, finding open ports with brute force wouldn't be
as aggressive as finding a working login. I do understand that you are
currently trying to create the initial version, and don't have too
much time to consume on luxuries, but frankly I have no idea about how
expensive adding the port scanning feature would have been. So I could
not have reasoned your decision not to do it.

Brute force attacks against the box as a whole would help less
technically skilled people to find out the weak accounts on their
computer. Using the tool becomes inherently easier when you only have
to know about network addresses and don't have to know what services
are. Atleast I understood host names and ip addresses long before I
really grasped services. The reason for this is that services are more
well hidden. People end up experimenting with addresses in their web
browsers, but not so much with port numbers or service names.

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