Home page logo

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: UDP payloads
From: David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:04:14 -0600

On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:24:51PM -0500, Tom Sellers wrote:
David Fifield wrote:
I have in a branch code that sends protocol payloads for ports 53, 123,
137, 161, and 1434.
     svn co --username guest --password "" svn://svn.insecure.org/nmap-exp/david/nmap-payloads
The payloads are taken from nmap-service-probes. They are:


I'm not an expert at any of the protocols above. So my question is, are
any of these probes too intrusive to be sent by default with every ping
or port scan probe? I'd like a yes/no for each of them before merging
the branch. For a couple of these we have options: port 53 also has
DNSVersionBindReq and port 161 also has SNMPv1public.

The SNMPv3GetRequest is safe, but I would expect that the SNMPv1public
probe would be much more likely to elicit some result given the broad
deployment of SNMPv1 vs SNMPv3.

Thanks Tom. I chose the SNMPv3GetRequest because it was better in the
ping probe tests, finding 24.2% of up hosts versus 19.8% for
SNMPv1public. In
-PU161-payload1 is SNMPv1public and -PU161-payload2 is SNMPv3GetRequest.
Maybe it's because SNMPv1public only works with a community string of
"public"? I don't see a community string in SNMPv3GetRequest.

I forgot to mention, for those who want to check out the probes, you can
do so with this command:
        ./nmap -sU -p 53,123,137,161,1434
If you capture the packets with Wireshark, then the protocols will be
dissected and you can see what each payload means.

David Fifield

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 ]