Another solution i used before to use is quite similar to this one... But i was forging packets for targeted host, and putting my computer in sniffing mode (tcpdump +tcpslice) Then a tiny script was getting hosts from which i got response. Like this, sending packet is very fast and your net stack is not suffering from number of connections, because there isn't ;)
Have a nice day =) Regards, Jean-Marc LE TOUX Jar Jar Binks: Monsters out there, leaking in here. Weesa all sinking and no power. Whena yousa thinking we are in trouble?(Episode 1, Star wars) PS: for forging, take a look at iwu.c, located in http://www.hsc.fr/ressources/outils/idswakeup/download/IDSwakeup-1.0.tgz > -----Message d'origine----- > De: Andreas Junestam [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Date: mardi 4 juin 2002 09:57 > �: wirepair > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet: Re: faster scans? (nmap) > > Hi, > > there is one more way to do this, but it assumes the machine to listen > on atleast one well-known port. Do a SYN sweep (fscan is easy to use > for this if you're stuck under windows) of the entire class B, but only > scan for 10-20 well-know ports and without pinging, such as ftp, ssh, > telnet, dns, http, finger, fw-1 ports, netbios, rpcportmap, https, > ldap, cisco ports and so on. This will not take more than 10-20 sec > per host. When you have pinned down most machines with this (and maybe > combined with an ordinary ping sweep), just hit all found machines with > a full blown nmap scan. > > /andreas > > wirepair wrote: > > > > Thanks for the responses: > > - The -PT option is great, if you know the host is > > listening on that specific port, otherwise it's kinda of > > useless. Remember a firewall is most likely sitting > > infront intercepting these packets, if the IP does not > > exist the firewalls going to drop (and not send a rst) the > > packet. This gives us no information to work from heh. > > - The -T Insane (5) -T Aggressive (4) Options don't > > exactly help either, Insane gives up after 75 seconds if > > no response is seen, (keep in mind a machine that may have > > a service listening on port 23592, this would never get > > picked up, nmap would quit after 75 seconds of scanning > > [unless it hit this by random]) So that rules this option > > out. Aggressive timed out in 300 seconds same deal as > > before with Insane. > > - strobe didn't seem to work any faster in this case, I > > tried that as well. > > *sigh* people need to not disable icmp echo reply :) > > Any other suggestions? (Thanks to all of you who did > > respond) > > -wire > > _____________________________ > > For the best comics, toys, movies, and more, > > please visit <http://www.tfaw.com/?qt=wmf> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert > (SIA) > > Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which > > automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please > see: > > https://alerts.securityfocus.com/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert > (SIA) > Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which > automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please > see: > https://alerts.securityfocus.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA) Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see: https://alerts.securityfocus.com/
