I've seen a single scanner, scanning 2 devices, drop packets, due to
scanning through load balancers, etc. Nessus can generate a *lot* of
traffic. Do your scan, then do a host at a time, and compare results, for
a decent benchmark of the accuracy of your current method. Different
network topologies would require testing like this again -- and I'd only
consider it a "decent" comparison, and not 100%.
James Birk <jbirk@birksystems.com>
Sent by: nessus-bounces@list.nessus.org
12/12/2007 01:30 PM
To
"darko g" <d.gavrilovic@gmail.com>
cc
nessus@list.nessus.org
Subject
Re: scanning multiple hosts
Is this really the case? One machine as a scanner and a client cannot
scan more than one host simultaneously without missing pretty big
deals like open ports?
I'm running a single core duo with 4 gigs of RAM and FreeBSD 6.*, and
the latest version of the server and client. I routinely scan up to 4
hosts simultaneously....am I trusting something to work that actually
isn't?
On Dec 12, 2007, at 3:26 PM, darko g wrote:
Whats your setup? Just one machine as a scanner & client? not gonna
cut it. you need to distribute it.
On Dec 12, 2007 2:52 PM, Steve Templists <stemplists@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been a nessus user for years, but I have getting horrible
results
recently when scanning more than one host at a time.
When scanning multiple hosts, the scanner will completely miss open
ports,
or it will see the port as open during the port scan, but then
report that
the port "was open but is now closed". I have had this problem on
numerous
installations recently, all using the latest rpm for suse 10 and
the latest
nessus-client version. The scans I am performing are using the
default scan
policy, the default port range, and the default scan options.
If I scan one host at a time I get "more reliable" results.
Although I'm
questioning any results I get. And scanning a class C is very time
consuming when starting one host at a time.
Not sure if anyone else has had issues and/or has any ideas.
Oh, and my hardware is new too so I don't think its a processor/
memory
problem.
Thanks for any feedback. I sure hope I'm missing something easy.
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus@list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
--
cheers,
dg
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus@list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus@list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus@list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
