Home page logo

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: [RFC] --exclude-ports option for Nmap
From: John <nmap-dev () johnbond org>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:49:45 +0200

Hi Jay,

I like the suggestion and i think your logic on how to handle the flags
is what i would expect.

On 05/06/14 13:42, Jacek Wielemborek wrote:
03/06/2014 15:42:11 Jay Bosamiya <jaybosamiya () gmail com>:
Hi All!

The --exclude-ports option would be a major boon to many Nmap
users and it has been in demand for quite a while now.
However, there are some things that need to be thought about
before we add it in.

1. How does it interact with -p? More specifically, what does
"-p 80 --exclude-ports 80" do (since user specifically
included it as well as excluded it)?
     I think that we should follow a "exclude has higher priority
than include" ideology and NOT scan 80 in this case. However,
we could show a warning to a user if he has included a port
individually and then excluded it (i.e. not using ranges). The
warning thing could be added later on, as a follow up.

IMHO the first case should be an error as there are no ports to 
scan. I would personally find it perfect if it defaulted to 
signalling an error instead of guessing. I was thinking of 
suggesting that it should panic anytime the -p and --exclude 
lists overlap, but that would make "-p- --exclude smtp" 
impossible, so it's probably not a good idea.
To me the main use for this feature is doing things like nmap -p-
--exlude 9100 or nmap -p1-1000 --exclude 9.  So i would be against
making this an error.
Sent through the 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 ]