Home > IT, Reviews, Security, Tools > Port Scanner Challenge: nmap, Unicornscan, PortBunny

Port Scanner Challenge: nmap, Unicornscan, PortBunny

January 13th, 2008 Leave a comment Go to comments

There's been quite a bit of mention lately of PortBunny, the new port scanner from Recurity Labs. The scanner is Linux kernel-based and provides a TCP SYN Scan. I figured that I'd put the scanner to the test against nmap and Unicornscan.

Here's the rundown of the setup used:

Software + Version:

Scanning Host:
OS: Ubuntu 7.10
Kernel: 2.6.22-14-generic
Processor: Intel Pentium M 2.13Ghz
RAM: 1GB

Install Process:

  1. Obtain archive
  2. Extract archive
  3. ./configure *No custom config options used for any of the software*
  4. make
  5. make install

Tested via Python:
Test Script (Note: I can't get my lines to tab properly, so tab over the four lines following def test):

import time, os

def test ( prog ) :
startTime = time.time()
os.system( prog )
endTime = time.time()
print ( 'Execution Time: %f' % ( endTime - startTime ) )

Targets:

  • vista - Vista Home Premium
  • shell - Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS (2.6.15-28-powerpc)
  • minibox - OS X 10.4.11
  • printer - HP LaserJet 4MV
  • gateway - m0n0wall 1.231

Scan Notes:

  • PortBunny requires an IP Address, it won't run against hostnames.
  • PortBunny doesn't sort the results list.
  • Unicornscan missed all ports on printer and gateway when scanning ports 1 - 65535.
  • PortBunny missed a port on printer when scanning ports 1 - 65535.
  • nmap missed 2 ports on printer when scanning with -T5 --max-retries 0.

Results:

Port Scanner Comparison

Raw Data, including ports found, after the jump.

Raw Data:

UnicornScan (No Flags)
vista: 8.231500 (3 ports: 135, 139, 445)
shell: 9.165131 (1 port: 22)
minibox: 8.742175 (3 ports: 22, 139, 445)
printer: 8.247121 (1 port: 23)
gateway: 9.254548 (1 port: 443)

UnicornScan (target:1-65535)
vista: 13.311627 (14 ports: 135, 139, 445, 912, 990, 3300, 5243, 5357, 49152-49157)
shell: 12.618381 (2 ports: 22, 22222)
minibox: 23.914155 (3 ports: 22, 139, 445)
printer: 13.418802 ( No Results )
gateway: 25.703069 ( No Results )

nmap (No Flags)
vista: 14.247429 (5 ports: 135, 139, 445, 912, 990)
shell: 1.459821 (1 port: 22)
minibox: 12.813033 (3 ports: 22, 139, 445)
printer: 15.712642 (3 ports: 23, 515, 9100)
gateway: 13.748654 (2 ports: 53, 443)

nmap (-p 1-65535)
vista: 46.718391 (14 ports: 135, 139, 445, 912, 990, 3300, 5243, 5357, 49152-49157)
shell: 3.512229 (2 ports: 22, 22222)
minibox: 524.289407 (3 ports: 22, 139, 445)
printer: 520.515789 (4 ports: 23, 515, 9099, 9100)
gateway: 521.966512 (2 ports: 53, 443)

nmap (-T5 --max-retries 0)
vista: 0.738913 (5 ports: 135, 139, 445, 912, 990)
shell: 0.454034 (1 port: 22)
minibox: 1.111805 (3 ports: 22, 139, 445)
printer: 1.617320 (1 port: 23)
gateway: 1.374272 (2 ports: 53, 443)

nmap (-T5 --max-retries 0 -p 1-65535)
vista: 8.418148 (14 ports: 135, 139, 445, 912, 990, 3300, 5243, 5357, 49152-49157)
shell: 2.463647 (2 ports: 22, 22222)
minibox: 16.159884 (3 ports: 22, 139, 445)
printer: 19.497723 (1 port: 23)
gateway: 15.732872 (2 ports: 53, 443)

PortBunny (No Flags)
vista: 18.304994 (5 ports: 139, 990, 135, 445, 912)
shell: 0.671106 (1 port: 22)
minibox: 11.71634 (3 ports: 139, 445, 22)
printer: 27.348082 (3 ports: 515, 9100, 23)
gateway: 16.010657 (2 ports: 443, 53)

PortBunny (-p 1-65535)
vista: 642.486770 (14 ports: 135, 139, 445, 912, 990, 3300, 5243, 5357, 49152-49157)
shell: 3.037339 (2 ports: 22, 22222)
minibox: 496.809214 (3 ports: 139, 445, 22)
printer: 927.133742 (2 ports: 515, 23)
gateway: 597.609687 (2 ports: 443, 53)

Categories: IT, Reviews, Security, Tools Tags:

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. January 15th, 2008 at 10:27 | #1

    Another scanner worth mentioning:

    Scanrand Dissected: A New Breed of Network Scanner
    http://www.secureworks.com/research/articles/scanrand

  2. January 20th, 2008 at 10:01 | #2

    so do you have an opinion at the end of all that?

    how did unicornscan do for UDP scanning against the other 2?

    your results are kinda unclear, it might help to start with exactly what was open on those boxes to start with. and what ports were missed in each scan in red or something.

  3. January 25th, 2008 at 20:10 | #3

    I tried to recreate this test in a small lab. You can compare our results here:
    http://loquens-caesu.blogspot.com/2008/01/round-1-heads-up-portbunny-vs-nmap-vs.html

    I also have nmap coming out on top for this type of test, but different numbers overall.

    –Robert

  1. January 14th, 2008 at 23:34 | #1
  2. February 4th, 2008 at 04:27 | #2