53 ms·
nmap is a bit of a joke to be fair, it is incredibly slow and there's no amount of fiddling with the settings that'll make it faster (even for simple SYN scans)
by ryanlol 10y ago
nmap is a bit of a joke to be fair, it is incredibly slow and there's no amount of fiddling with the settings that'll make it faster (even for simple SYN scans).
Scanning every single TCP port on a host will require 65536 packets, those packets will all be about 40 bytes in size. That's only 2.6 megabytes, so on a 100Mbit link that should take around 200ms to send.
This is a pretty trivial exercise to implement yourself, but for pre-existing tools you can look at masscan and zmap. However, these will not provide the version detection nmap does.
- cryowaffle 10y agoSo you are saying to use a different tool to be fast but to use name for feature detection... Nmap is pretty darn fast if you disable feature detection!
- ryanl0l 10y ago>Nmap is pretty darn fast if you disable feature detection! No it isn't, nmap is ridiculously slow no matter what you do. The only thing it does well is version detection, but you can do that too way faster. If you specifically need nmaps version detection, sure use it. Otherwise you might be better off using masscan, it tends to do a pretty good job even with the default banner grabbing.