On 20 Aug 2013, at 22:00, Ashley Sheridan <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 21:44 +0100, Stuart Dallas wrote: >> On 20 Aug 2013, at 21:30, Dan Munro <d...@danmunro.com >> > wrote: >> >> >> in my opinion, that would be like asking "how big is the internet?". >> > >> > >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/18/heres-what-you-find-when-you-scan-the-entire-internet-in-an-hour/ >> >> >> That's scanning IP addresses and doesn't come close to answering "how big is >> the internet," assuming that means how many sites are there rather than how >> many publicly responsive edge servers exist. >> > I'd argue that a large proportion of really secure servers out there won't > respond to a lot of what Zmap pings out. Nmap works by throwing out requests > on a bunch of different ports, not just ping, which is slow, so I'd be > surprised if Zmap could really rival that while giving the same results. > Bearing in mind there are over 4,000 million (I won't say billion, because > that's a million million, despite what the Americans say!) IPv4 address out > there, 40 minutes is a ridiculous amount of time to even scan half of that, > especially given the fact that IPv6 is being majorly pushed because IPv4 is > apparently running out of free address space! Then not forgetting that lots > of websites exist on the same IP address/range, I would say the article is > lacking on so many details as to be untrue. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's untrue, but it's certainly written with exaggerated implications. -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
