From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Feb 10 22:59:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA03130 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:59:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from thelab.hub.org (nat0716.mpoweredpc.net [142.177.190.208]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA03125 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:59:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA10061; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:59:16 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:59:16 -0400 (AST) From: The Hermit Hacker To: Kris Kennaway cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: An Operating Systems Survey, of sorts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Kris Kennaway wrote: > You can tell nmap to just scan port 80 for fingerprinting purposes if you > wanted to, with the caveat that machines which aren't running a webserver > won't be fingerprinted. I reduced nmap-services down to about 10 or so of the "core" ones...the results are much cleaner, and, appear to be, more accurate, then using QueSO...but its one helluva lot slower... Interesting to see how much more reasonable this looks now... Marc G. Fournier Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message