Comments on: Port Scanner Challenge: nmap, Unicornscan, PortBunny http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/ Sharing my thoughts with the world. Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:58:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: .:Computer Defense:. » Update on Port Scanner Challenge http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/comment-page-1/#comment-42267 .:Computer Defense:. » Update on Port Scanner Challenge Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:27:14 +0000 http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/13/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/#comment-42267 [...] other day I posted the Port Scanner Challenge, and a follow-up article declaring a [...] [...] other day I posted the Port Scanner Challenge, and a follow-up article declaring a [...]

]]> By: Robert E. Lee http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/comment-page-1/#comment-41081 Robert E. Lee Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:10:18 +0000 http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/13/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/#comment-41081 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 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

]]> By: CG http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/comment-page-1/#comment-40431 CG Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:01:46 +0000 http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/13/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/#comment-40431 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. 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.

]]> By: anonymous http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/comment-page-1/#comment-39936 anonymous Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:27:29 +0000 http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/13/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/#comment-39936 Another scanner worth mentioning: Scanrand Dissected: A New Breed of Network Scanner http://www.secureworks.com/research/articles/scanrand Another scanner worth mentioning:

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

]]> By: .:Computer Defense:. » Port Scanner Challenge: And the Winner is? http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/comment-page-1/#comment-39887 .:Computer Defense:. » Port Scanner Challenge: And the Winner is? Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:34:04 +0000 http://www.computerdefense.org/2008/01/13/port-scanner-challenge-nmap-unicornscan-portbunny/#comment-39887 [...] other day I posted raw data comparing nmap, PortBunny and Unicornscan… I thought today I’d provide some of [...] [...] other day I posted raw data comparing nmap, PortBunny and Unicornscan… I thought today I’d provide some of [...]

]]>