The other issue is this: I find it difficult to believe that this entire
subnet is on one lan. Do you have the hosts segregated in different vlans
and do you have firewalls in place? Are the firewall(s) {if present}
identically configured? Depending on how the firewalls (if present) react
to tcp connect or syn scan attempts, you would have to come up with a proper
way to do this.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy --- Jack Torrance, The Shining
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Tatgenhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michel Arboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "sanjeev sinha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Frank OSborne"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Missing hosts in scan
nmap -sP was not what Sanjeev was suggesting, if I read his post
right. He added at the end to "not ping them" so my interpretation of
that would be to use nmap -s[STU] (only one :-) and possibly if you feel
safe even up the timing (nmap -sS -T4 for example). Many hosts block
icmp and nmap deals better if you do a syn|tcp|udp scan. However, if
there is a common thread in what you are looking for (ie just a couple
ports) doscan is extremely fast and may work better for it (it even
outputs into a usable target list format).
Karl
On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 22:30 +0200, Michel Arboi wrote:
On Fri May 12 2006 at 22:23, sanjeev sinha wrote:
> Seems like a lot of hosts. Why don't you do a nmap scan to see
> which hosts are up and then do a scan using nessus.
Definitely a bad idea.
nmap -sP is much less efficient than ping_host.nasl
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
