Re: faster scans? (nmap)

[Gregory Duchemin <c3rb3r () sympatico ca>]

hello,

Additionnaly, and if the firewall accepts ougoing icmp traffic from 
itself, u should try to firewalk it with the remote ip for wich "fast 
scans" and pings gave nothing, doing so (using the same port numbers 
than fast scan) u would see if the remote target is allowed by firewall 
rules giving you an additionnal clue that either the host exist and is 
down or the firewall is misconfigured (too much permissive -> host 
doesn't exists).
Basically, with fast scan, u known that remote addr didn't respond to 
syn probes, but getting back a time exceeded reply from firewalk probes 
give u a confirmation that host is allowed but not available (not 
existing or down). 
Try firewalk, first, with a host/port pair u know to be up just to be 
sure it is a reliable technic in your context, avoiding a time waste.
but still nothing for sure, indeed the host may run its own filters 
while being up, and by default your best bet remain the big full scan in 
syn scan (-sS) at least u avoid a complete three handschake for 
responding ports.  [:)] 

Gregory



Andreas Junestam wrote:

> Hi,
>
> there is one more way to do this, but it assumes the machine to listen
> on atleast one well-known port. Do a SYN sweep (fscan is easy to use
> for this if you're stuck under windows) of the entire class B, but only
> scan for 10-20 well-know ports and without pinging, such as ftp, ssh,
> telnet, dns, http, finger, fw-1 ports, netbios, rpcportmap, https,
> ldap, cisco ports and so on. This will not take more than 10-20 sec
> per host. When you have pinned down most machines with this (and maybe
> combined with an ordinary ping sweep), just hit all found machines with
> a full blown nmap scan.
>
> /andreas
>
> wirepair wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the responses:
> > - The -PT option is great, if you know the host is
> > listening on that specific port, otherwise it's kinda of
> > useless. Remember a firewall is most likely sitting
> > infront intercepting these packets, if the IP does not
> > exist the firewalls going to drop (and not send a rst) the
> > packet. This gives us no information to work from heh.
> > - The -T Insane (5) -T Aggressive (4) Options don't
> > exactly help either, Insane gives up after 75 seconds if
> > no response is seen, (keep in mind a machine that may have
> > a service listening on port 23592, this would never get
> > picked up, nmap would quit after 75 seconds of scanning
> > [unless it hit this by random]) So that rules this option
> > out. Aggressive timed out in 300 seconds same deal as
> > before with Insane.
> > - strobe didn't seem to work any faster in this case, I
> > tried that as well.
> > *sigh* people need to not disable icmp echo reply :)
> > Any other suggestions? (Thanks to all of you who did
> > respond)
> > -wire
> > _____________________________
> > For the best comics, toys, movies, and more,
> > please visit <http://www.tfaw.com/?qt=wmf>
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA)
> > Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which
> > automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see:
> > https://alerts.securityfocus.com/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA)
> Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which
> automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see:
> https://alerts.securityfocus.com/