Home page logo

basics logo Security Basics mailing list archives

Re: Different Outputs using different Portscanners...
From: Gene Yoo <gyoo () attbi com>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 18:54:44 -0700

jjohnmck () bigpond net au wrote:
I used two different portscanners to scan my labs range and a got a variety of results:

(1) nmap using -sS flag on Linux
(2) Superscan in windows

Superscan seemed to pick up some of the fixup protocols that are in enabled (but not necessarily in use), but nmap didnt.. Any thoughts or similar experiences?

depends on what option you used on superscan to portscan, i believe the default is icmp. now what version of nmap are you running? the current release is 3.2x. i've done series port scanning at work but to date, i haven't encountered nmap not being able to produce faster or better report than existing tools. why are you using -sS? are you using both scanners with same options?

this reminds me of security magazines test on open source tool (nessus, sara) comparison with other proprietary tools. where the tester completely ignored available options before making an assumption.

just my .05...

gene yoo
<<gyoo [at] attbi [dot] com>>

Hash: SHA1

Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)


FastTrain has your solution for a great CISSP Boot Camp. The industry's most recognized corporate security certification track, provides a comprehensive prospectus based upon the core principle concepts of security. This ALL INCLUSIVE curriculum utilizes lectures, case studies and true hands-on utilization of pertinent security tools. For a limited time you can enter for a chance to win one of the latest technological innovations, the SEGWAY HT. Log onto http://www.securityfocus.com/FastTrain-security-basics ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]