Nmap Security Scanner
*Intro
*Ref Guide
*Install Guide
*Download
*Changelog
*Book
*Docs
Security Lists
*Nmap Hackers
*Nmap Dev
*Bugtraq
*Full Disclosure
*Pen Test
*Basics
*More
Security Tools
*Pass crackers
*Sniffers
*Vuln Scanners
*Web scanners
*Wireless
*Exploitation
*Packet crafters
*More
Site News
Site Search:
Exploit World
Advertising
About/Contact
Credits
Sponsors:




nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: SinFP 2.06, new signatures, benchmark results
From: Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:50:46 -0800

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:19:52PM +0100, GomoR wrote:

Also, two benchmarks versus Nmap have been done:
http://www.phocean.net/index.php/post/2006/12/17/SinFP
http://www.computerdefense.org/?p=173

Independent benchmark results can be useful, but I'm afraid that those
two are rather poor.  The first one uses Nmap 4.10 (first generation
OS detection, released in June) rather than 4.20 with 2nd gen OS
detection.  The second one uses --osscan-guess on Nmap 4.03 and the
equivalent option (-H) on SinFP.  Then he _doesn't_ include that
option in the 4.20 results.  So it makes Nmap 4.03 look better than
4.20, just because he used more appropriate command-line flags for
4.03.

Cheers,
-F

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org


  By Date           By Thread  

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