Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: Why 232 rounds?
From: "Luis MartinGarcia." <luis.mgarc () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:56:00 +0100
Hi, Fyodor. Some responses in-line: On 09/13/2012 01:53 AM, Fyodor wrote:
Thanks Luis, though you might find that merging patches (such as this one) to trunk as they are completed (and tested) may make the merge of your whole branch to trunk easier by limiting the size and number of code changes that need to be done at once. It also makes it easier to detect and isolate regressions. Of course this may not be practical for more involved changes that involve code which has changed substantially since the branch.
I agree. I just chose to fix the issue only in my dev branch because the code that handles the round count now is completely different from the one in trunk (it's not even in the same file). I would have fixed it in both versions if it had been something critical.
Also, is nmap-npingchanges currently in a working state?
In theory yes, it is in a working state.
Maybe I need to build it differently or something, but I just get a seg fault when I try to run it.
Interesting. I have added a few assert()s and debug messages. Could you please update the whole branch (including nmap and libnetutil), and try to run it again passing "-d4". The debug output may help me narrow the problem. Thanks. Regards, Luis MartinGarcia. _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- Why 232 rounds? . (Sep 09)
- Re: Why 232 rounds? Fyodor (Sep 12)
- Re: Why 232 rounds? Luis MartinGarcia. (Sep 12)
- Re: Why 232 rounds? Fyodor (Sep 12)
- Re: Why 232 rounds? Luis MartinGarcia. (Sep 13)
- Re: Why 232 rounds? Fyodor (Sep 17)
- Re: Why 232 rounds? Luis MartinGarcia. (Sep 12)
- Re: Why 232 rounds? Fyodor (Sep 12)