Re,
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 12:57:12PM -0700, Fyodor wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:40:54PM -0400, Matt Repicky wrote:
> > After reading the changelog and man pages I finally figured out that
> > the max_hostgroup is my best option to getting back to the single scan
> > functionality of nmap 3.5*. Is there any better way to allow the
> > parallelism to continue while getting usable output should it run into
> > a bad target halfway?
>
> Have you tried the --host_timeout option? Tell it how long you are
> willing to wait, and the slow hosts will timeout while you still get
> data from the responsive ones. For example, --host_timeout 3600000
> will give up on any host that takes more than an hour.
Being a nmap user for several years I often have similar experiences as
Matt had. I'd love to see some kind of signal handler, say for SIGUSR1
that actaully terminates the current scan and moves on.
I also experimented with --host_timeout but this is often undesireable,
since you have different classes of systems I'd like to spend nmap more
or less time with.
Maybe this feature makes it at least to the wishlist?
Regards,
Nils Magnus
Program-Chair LinuxTag 2004 Free Conference Program
LinuxTag 2004: Where .com meets .org - magnus_at_linuxtag.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For help using this (nmap-dev) mailing list, send a blank email to
nmap-dev-help@insecure.org . List archive: http://seclists.org
Received on Oct 12 2004
Intro
