mailing list archives
Re: distrbuted nmap?
From: "Juan M. Bello Rivas" <jmbello () itchy coverlink es>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:55:39 +0100
On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 06:53:17PM -0500, Jose Nazario wrote:
regarding the use of PVM, it was raised that PVM, MPI and other Beowulf
solutions are fantastic for CPU intensive applications (like the molecular
dynamics simulations i run from time to time) but would be overkill for
something ike nmap.
i quite disagree. i think that PVM actually provides a nice framework for
what you would want to do with a distributed application like nmap. like
TCP, PVM keeps track of connections and messages sent, it has very good
error handling, dynamic group assignments and the like. it runs over TCP,
so it provides a nice reliable data stream over the WAN. heck, it even
works on NT (for the reportedly in the works nmap port to NT) these are
all the kinds of things you would demand in a framework for a distrubuted
application. just because it's not CPU intensive does not mean it's
overkill, i'm just asking why reinvent the wheel?
I do also think PVM is overkill for a distributed implementation of
nmap. While agreeing totally with you in the usefulness of the PVM API when
I set up PVM some time ago I found it a bit heavy-weight since it depends on
rlogind and stuff like that. I have the feeling that it would make the
deployment of a distributed nmap harder than an ad-hoc solution (please
correct me if I'm wrong).
"we find ourselves in pictures on the net
blinded by science addicted to devotion"
Covenant: Dead Stars