mailing list archives
Re: massping migration and you
From: David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:08:36 -0600
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:59:46PM +0000, Brandon Enright wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:43:15 -0600 plus or minus some time David Fifield
<david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
Nmap done: 186336 IP addresses (11554 hosts up) scanned in 9040.909
Wow, that's alarming. Your scan is one I would expect the migrated host
discovery to do well at. Although I've never tested it on such a large
group of hosts.
There are many times when I want to know all machines with a particular
port open on our public /16s and private /12. I always scan
with -T5 as a base template and generally add --max-retries 1 and
- --min-hostgroup 2048.
I've been looking at the code, and I can't see that --min-hostgroup has
ever affected ping scans. That affects the group size for things like
port scanning, but it only has an effect after hosts come out of
nexthost, after massping has already seen them.
Which is all the more puzzling because I thought your --min-hostgroup
option might be the source of the speed discrepancy. Just for the heck
of it, can you try a scan using --min-parallelism 2048 instead?
I used to do these scans with -P0 because in my own twisted logic "it's
much faster to only send 1 or 2 SYNs than to have to ping/send other probes
first before sending the SYNs. By the time you've determined the host is
up, you could have already determined if the port is up."
Of course, when I actually tested it, it was between 5x and 10x faster to
use -P A<short list of ports> before sending the single port probes.
I always attributed this to the speed over reliability of massping() versus
the reliability over speed for ultrascan(). I don't have real test results
handy but I can run some scans to illustrate this if you're interested.
The majority of the massping migration work has been in trying to make
ultra_scan appropriate for these types of scans. That's just what we're
trying to overcome. There's no real reason why
nmap -sP -PS80
should be different from
nmap -p0 -sS -p80
Can you send me the times from scanning just one of your /16 address
spaces? Maybe there's something that's making the scan scale
non-linearly. Also, please try it again with -T4. That increases the
congestion window recovery speed, which will help if you're getting lots
Okay, I ran:
ultra_scan is much more cautious in the face of drops than massping was.
Are you getting many? You can find out by running with -d2 and grepping
the log file for "DROPPED".
I know hitting drops and timeouts unnecessarily can severely hurt
performance. It seems to me that for 57k scanned hosts, even 106 drops is
a drop in the bucket for total probes sent.
Actually that many drops can hurt a lot. That's (kind of) like getting
100 drops during a 64 K port scan of a single host, after which you
would expect Nmap to slow down considerably. However, if the slowness
doesn't increase accuracy, then there's no reason for it.
I've always been under the impression that timing options like -T# didn't
affect "ping scans" at all. Did it used to or does it only now affect them
because of the migration to ultrascan()?
I don't think it used to, but it surely does with ultra_scan.
I'm going to re-run my 3 /16 net scans with -T4 and -T5 to see if that puts
us back into the 25 minute range.
Also, I've re-run the scan that crashed yesterday many times and it hasn't
crashed again. I'll keep trying.
Okay, thanks. Your detailed reports have been helpful so far. Sorry for
the late reply.
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
Archived at http://SecLists.Org
- Re: massping migration and you, (continued)