Home page logo

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: Ncrack discussion
From: ithilgore <ithilgore.ryu.l () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:27:07 +0300

jah wrote:
Hi ithilgore, my comments inline:

1) Target-Service Specification

Ex1: $ ncrack 10.0.0.*,, www.google.com -p22, 23

This will try to crack the default services on ports 22, 23 (ssh, telnet) for
hosts, and www.google.com
I like that.  The user can specify a bunch of default services on a
group of targets.  And, like Nmap, -p should take service names as well
as port numbers.
What happens if the user knows that the above hosts' services listen on
non-default ports? He should be able to specify that like this:

Ex2: $ ncrack 10.0.0.*,, www.google.com -p399, 4531 -s ftp, svn
I agree with Kris, this seems tedious and is likely to cause errors in
service specification. Kris' idea of proto:port seems the most natural
way to do this.
Fyodor also suggested a url-like scheme like this:

Ex3: $ ncrack ssh://scanme.nmap.org:22, ftp://foo.bar.org:3000, bar.acme.org:21,
This could be OK (it's certainly intuitive), but what If I want to
specify several different services at more than one host as well as a
few services common to all hosts.  

Yes, this is the main problem with the above approach.

Maybe something like the following:

ncrack  scanme.nmap.org[21,22,ftp:9000] 
foo.bar.com[telnet:9000,ssh:9001]  -p 110

which would do:
pop, ftp and ssh on the default ports and ftp on 9000 at scanme
pop on the default port and telnet and ssh on ports 9000 and 9001
respectively at foo.bar.com

The above sounds great since it solves the host-service uniqueness and
additionally it doesn't limit the user having to specify the host so many times
as the different services he needs to crack (like the url-scheme does).

However, using brackets will involve having to escape them in most shells. Since
we want to avoid that, another character might be more appropriate. What about
using slashes?

$ ncrack scanme.nmap.org/21,22,ftp:9000/ foo.bar.com/telnet:9000,ssh:9001/  -p 110

It looks uglier though. Any other idea on that? The general scheme looks great
apart from that.

-- ithilgore

Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
Archived at http://SecLists.Org

  By Date           By Thread  

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