Nmap 4.00 Released

NoExec writes "Hot off the nmap-hackers list comes news that the Nmap Security Scanner version 4.00 has been released. Dozens of major changes since 3.50 (2 years ago) are listed in the announcement. These include a rewritten (for speed and memory efficiency) port scanning engine, ARP scanning, a brand new man page and install guide, 'l33t ASCII art, runtime interaction, massive version detection improvements, MAC address spoofing, increased Windows performance, 500 new OS detection fingerprints, completion time estimates, and much more."

Comments

Comparison to Nessus

[yesnoyes]

My favorite part of the release announcement actually relates to Nessus:

A popular open source security scanner recently went proprietary, complaining that their community never contributes much. We are sorry to hear that, but happy to report that the Nmap community is as vibrant and productive as ever! We would like to acknowledge and thank the many people who contributed ideas and/or code to this release (since 3.50). Special thanks go out to Adam Kerrison, Adam Morgan, Adriano Monteiro Marques, Alan Bishoff [ huge list goes on and on ... ]

So if Nessus can't get enough help, maybe that says more about how they run the project than their suggestion of an open source community of leeches who don't contribute back.

Re:Gibson has no credibility

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Saying 'but he knows nothing about cars,' is not an ad hominum attack because my abilities, knowledge and experience are directly related to my ability to make a correct argument on this subject.

Correct.

No but it would lend support to the statement that he's a moron

Incorrect, non sequitur, and evidence of not understanding "ad hominem". Unless you're stating that he has that particular 10-point IQ range designated "moron", that fell out of use ages ago, calling him a moron is a personal attack. What if he's being paid off by an underling of Stallman to make as much noise as possible about Windows vulnerabilities - and since Windows is so vulnerable, he's generally right? What if he's just misguided but using useful sources? What if he jumped the shark some time back?

If you can lend any support to the theory "Gibson is unqualified to offer opinions on Windows security," you'd have a leg. If you can simply prove "Raw sockets do not affect the attack level of the Internet," your case would be done, and you would be attacking the argument, not the person. Why risk making an unrelated ad hominem that could be a fallacy, if it's far easier, and more relevant to the Slashdot discussion at large, to prove the original statement?

Here, to bring this on topic, refute these claims about raw sockets.

• Raw sockets have no use in a workstation OS. If XP Home is coming without a webserver, a remote desktop, and so forth, then why does it need something as obscure as raw sockets?
  
• If you need to build a specific interface that isn't, e.g., TCP/IP, then write a driver for the protocol, and either digitally sign it or let the user accept the unsigned driver.
  
• If we need to allow application-level raw sockets, then only let it run as administrator. Kinda like UNIX only lets root run servers on the first 1024 ports.
  
• Raw sockets are easily used by botnets to spoof their source address in a DDOS. Botnets exist.
  
• The average user never needs raw sockets. (Nmap is not a tool for the average user.)
  

Therefore, just like everything else they've been recently disabling in the name of security, raw sockets have ample justification not to be there.