Re: more confusion...

[Jacek Wielemborek <d33tah () gmail com>]

W dniu 23.11.2014 o 14:17, Mike . pisze:
> so i posted earlier some items when scanning my local router. to me, this is another anamoly. here is the output
> nmap -vv -n -P0 -sn  192.168.0.156  -packet-trace
> Starting Nmap 6.45 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2014-11-23 07:08 Central Standard Time
> Nmap scan report for 192.168.0.156Host is up.Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.04 seconds
> now what i see there is NO PING. but should it not try an ARP request at least? i say this because that IP i am 
> giving it i did on purpose IT DOES NOT EXIST! nmap is saying "host is up" and that is impossible in this case. so 
> this is more nitpicking, but since nmap is known for painstaking error checking and reliability, should we not change 
> this error or at least force an ARP REQUEST to PROVE host is up (even if no ping is given)? maybe it's just hard for 
> me to differentiate ICMPand ARP pings. does P0 mean "no ARP ping?). i equate P with ICMP, sorry
> m                                       
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent through the dev mailing list
> http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/

Hello again,

You are asking another question that is clearly answered in the
documentation. Please read up on what -P0 means and phrase your mailing
list threads more descriptively next time. Also, I would suggest to
re-read the documentation - not only will you learn about a lot of
powerful Nmap features that you never knew before, but also you won't
need to wait for an nmap-dev response for every single Nmap question you
come up with.

Jacek

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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