That single UDP datagram is definitely faster. Compare the Code Red worm to Sapphire (SQL Slammer), for instance:
"Previous scanning worms, such as Code Red, spread via many threads, each invoking connect() to probe random addresses. Thus each thread's scanning rate was limited by network latency, the time required to transmit a TCP-SYN packet and wait for a response or timeout. In principal, worms can compensate for this latency by invoking a sufficiently large number of threads. However, in practice, context switch overhead is significant and there are insufficient resources to create enough threads to counteract the network delays -- the worm quickly stalls and becomes latency limited. In contrast, Sapphire's scanner was limited by each compromised machine's bandwidth to the Internet. Since the SQL Server vulnerability was exploitable using a single packet to UDP port 1434, the worm was able to send these scans without requiring a response from the potential victim." * http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2003/sapphire/sapphire.html (Oops, sorry for the copy to your inbox, Andrew.) On 3/5/08, Andrew A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hey dude, how is merely sending a single datagram not going to be faster > than doing an entire handshake? > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Sebastian Krahmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is not true. I doubt there is any measurable advantage > > of UDP vs. TCP scans if you do it right. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: > http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
