Re: Looking at the windows 64 sockets allowed bug.

[James Rogers <jamesmrogers () gmail com>]

I've done some benchmarking.  With the -sT option on 32bit Windows 7
I can scan in 138 seconds  compare to 392 seconds  in nmap 6.01.
This is almost a 3 times speed up.   Just to be through, on an
unpatched nmap 6.02 the -sT option runs in 362 seconds.   An example
of this comparison is in -sTtestnmap.jpg that I have attached to this
email.

I don't have another version of windows with which to test.  If
someone could try out this patch on their own computer, that would be
good. I wouldn't want to add something that breaks ore reduces
performance on older versions of the windows build.

I tried a normal scan as well, and noticed that the normal scan was
taking at least 3 times longer to complete.  To make sure this was not
caused by the above patch I rechecked out and compiled and in Nmap
6.02

I am seeing 12 second scan times for a single host in the latest Nmap
6.02 compared to 3 to 4 second scan times in Nmap 6.01.  An example of
this comparison is in NormalNmap.jpg that I have attached to this
email.

So it looks like scan times have regressed between 6.01 and 6.02 on
windows 7 - 32 bit.

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:06 AM, James Rogers <jamesmrogers () gmail com> wrote:
> Added #define FD_SETSIZE 1024 to a few headers, had to rearrange the
> order that a few libraries loaded in a handful of files to limit the
> number of times I defined FD_SETSIZE.   Eliminated all the compile
> errors, then replaced a return 0 with a return FD_SETSIZE in
> set_max_open_descriptors() called by max_sd() function in module
> netutil.cc.
>
> max_sd() is called by several functions in scan_engine.cc.
>
> I tested this by calling nmap with various --min_parallelism and
> --max_parallelism flags.
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:44:13PM -0400, James Rogers wrote:
> > > What is the preferred version of Windows you would like nmap
> > > developers to develop on?  I have Windows 7 and XP.
> >
> > Hi James.  There's not really a preferred version, as having
> > developers use different versions can actually help.  Most of us use
> > Windos 7 by now, but Windows XP SP2 and later is fine.  Older versions
> > can help catch compatability problems.
> >
> > Of course it is even better to test on both (I keep Windows 7 and
> > Windows XP VMs around for testing).
> >
> > > What tools do we use to compile nmap under windows?  I have an older
> > > version of visual studio on the XP machine.
> >
> > We have details and instructions here:
> >
> > http://nmap.org/book/inst-windows.html#inst-win-source
> >
> > > What are the best command line options to exercise 1000 ports on a
> > > single machine?
> >
> > I guess it depends what your goals are for the scan.  A plain "nmap
> > <target>" command will scan 1,000 ports on the target machine.  But
> > you can also add options like -A to make the scan more intense.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fyodor

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