Re: Running parallel nmaps vs internal balancing

[Ron <ron () skullsecurity net>]

Depending on how thorough you want to be, and how your network is set up, you might be able to save a lot of time and 
packets by first determining which subnets (/24 or /16) are active by scanning a handful of addresses in each, then 
only scanning those. 

That's what I do at work, but our network here is kinda lame (in terms of speed). 

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:54:37 +0100 nmapuseraix <nmapuseraix () o2 pl>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I need to 10.0.0.0/8 to see which hosts are alive.
> Would it make sense to run couple of nmaps in parallel?
>
> nmap ref. guide mentions that there is a mechanism for adjusting the
> speed of scanning based on network performance, thus the question if
> I should run single nmap -n -T Insane 10.0.0.0/8 (it's fast network
> here) and it will use up the resources or shall I split the scope
> onto 8 (16?) subscopes?
>
> Any additional parameters that could speed things up (without
> compromising reliability too much)? I have found that nmap's ARP ping
> scan alone is not good here.
>
> Any tip appreciated :)
> --
> Best regards,
> Bart
> _______________________________________________
> Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
> http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
> Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/


-- 
Ron Bowes
http://www.skullsecurity.org
http://www.twitter.com/iagox86
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/