On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:54:31PM -0400, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Jesper Skriver wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:23:31PM -0700, Scott Renfro wrote:
> > > You have a valid point that icmp_may_rst changes nmap's behavior, even
> > > with the proposed patch. If you
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Jesper Skriver wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:23:31PM -0700, Scott Renfro wrote:
> > You have a valid point that icmp_may_rst changes nmap's behavior, even
> > with the proposed patch. If you want nmap's historic behavior (admin
> > prohib ==> filtered), then turning o
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:23:31PM -0700, Scott Renfro wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 04:53:26PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> >
> > As another heavy nmap user, I'd vote just the other way. It's useful
> > to differentiate between a reset coming back from the destination host
> > and an unreacha
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 04:53:26PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
>
> As another heavy nmap user, I'd vote just the other way. It's useful
> to differentiate between a reset coming back from the destination host
> and an unreachable from a firewall/router-acl. Ordinary apps probably
> don't care all
As another heavy nmap user, I'd vote just the other way. It's useful
to differentiate between a reset coming back from the destination host
and an unreachable from a firewall/router-acl. Ordinary apps probably
don't care all that much about why a connection could not be established,
and just rep
