From: Gregory Duchemin (c3rb3r@sympatico.ca)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 10:42:34 EDT
That gives me an idea, one could use two hosts for quick n dirty full scans,
one host using nmap for syn scans in burst mode (low timeout) with the
spoofed ip (-s option) of the 2nd host
while the other, possibly waiting in a remote friendly lan, is just
sniffing at syn/ack or rst replies and configured to not send any rst
back to the scanned target.
this may avoid local system/network congestion for some people and
intermediate networks congestion as well since two different network
paths might be used for both requests and replies if any.
but still helpless in remote low bandwidth situations however.
Gregory
JLETOUX@bouyguestelecom.fr wrote:
>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:andreas@atstake.com]
>>Date: mardi 4 juin 2002 09:57
>>À: wirepair
>>Cc: pen-test@securityfocus.com
>>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/
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:53:22 EDT