Home page logo

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

From: David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:49:02 -0800

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:31:34PM +0100, John Bond wrote:
On 25 February 2011 09:50, John Bond <john.r.bond () gmail com> wrote:
On 25 February 2011 05:31, David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
I would be interested to see What peoples experiences are with this
When testing on a complex zone my script seems to find more entries.
i.e. on the zone im testing my script gets 2612 results ldns-walk gets
1725.  I think i know why this is but will have to check the ldns
source tonight

Yes this is because they walk the zone differently i assume that
the next zone to check should be 1.$lasthostname ldns-walk has \001$lasthostname
i.e. no dot.  basically i do something similar to ldns if my thing
dosn't work and i think
ldns does the opposite.  The method i use means i get a lot more sub
domain information.

I think you're right about this. (Except that ldns-walk is using
$lasthostname0, not \001$lasthostname.) Section 6.1 of RFC 4034 says
that 0.example.com precedes example0.com. And you're right that your
method is finding the subdomains. This is clever and useful behavior.

As I learned while studying your script, we need the "append 0" behavior
sometimes too, namely when a complete subzone has been enumerated,
because the final NSEC record will point back to the first name in the
subzone. Then we append a zero to continue on in the parent zone. In my
changes to your script I took advantage of this and displayed subzones
with greater indentation.

David Fifield
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/

  By Date           By Thread  

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