After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 467467 - port scan misses some known open ports
port scan misses some known open ports
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-nettool
Classification: Applications
Component: general
2.19.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Germán Poo-Caamaño
Rodrigo Moya
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-08-16 21:42 UTC by Sebastien Bacher
Modified: 2007-08-20 13:57 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.19/2.20


Attachments
screenshot of success - higher ports found - will post after wiping IP#s. (27.69 KB, image/png)
2007-08-20 06:26 UTC, David Purdy
Details

Description Sebastien Bacher 2007-08-16 21:42:34 UTC
The bug has been opened on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-nettool/+bug/38684

"the port scan of a machine known to have three open ports returns with only 1 listed open ports. nmpafe confirms that there are three open ports. Network Utils in OS X also confirms there are 3 open ports. the missed ports #s are 9100 and 10000.

Should there be preferences for choosing how thoroughly one wishes to scan? What range of port #'s to scan?
..."
Comment 1 David Purdy 2007-08-19 17:27:42 UTC
Yes, please.  It seems kind of arbitrary to scan just ports up to 7000 - obviously there are lots of important ones with a higher number.

This could be fixed with either:
A.  a higher value in the source code (say 32000 or even up to the last port, around 65000), and the user could stop it with the STOP button.

B.  a field could be added on the port scan GUI panel, allowing the user to enter the upper limit of the port # to be scanned, with a default value of about 65000.

Thanks for your efforts to improve Gnome and its tools.  :^)

Fix A would be the simplest.
Comment 2 Germán Poo-Caamaño 2007-08-19 18:15:37 UTC
Confirming this feature request.

65535 is the higher value that could be set.

Probably, a checkbutton could be enough.  'Full scan' (unchecked by default?) and a tooltip showing that by default it will be 7000 (or any other number).
Comment 3 David Purdy 2007-08-19 19:50:16 UTC
Awesome. 

For comparison/reference, in OS X (for instance) the comparable port-scan tool does a full (65535) scan, w/ the option :

<checkbox> only test ports between <field1-start> and <field2-stop> .

This would be a more complicated fix (branching on condition that the box is checked, etc.).

:^)
Any chance to be able to test all ports would be a welcome improvement on an already very good piece of software.

Comment 4 Germán Poo-Caamaño 2007-08-19 20:04:32 UTC
Not really complicated to fix.

The complicate thing is having a simple tool :-)
Comment 5 David Purdy 2007-08-20 06:24:56 UTC
Hi German,

Since I am working in Gentoo & made an overlay for the problem, fetched & unpacked the source, changed 7000 to 65535 in */src/scan.c ,and after compile, install & qmerge I got good results... the simple fix works as expected.  AFAIK, my Airport BaseStation Extreme has only three ports open, and it found them all - even the 2 that are above 7000.  Attached is screenshot.  It did take it quite a while, but that is perhaps to be expected.  ;^)

Comment 6 David Purdy 2007-08-20 06:26:33 UTC
Created attachment 93963 [details]
screenshot of success - higher ports found - will post after wiping IP#s.
Comment 7 David Purdy 2007-08-20 06:33:58 UTC
Comment on attachment 93963 [details]
screenshot of success - higher ports found - will post after wiping IP#s.

><HTML><BODY><IMG width="612" src="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=93962" alt="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=93962" style="cursor: -moz-zoom-in;"/></BODY></HTML>
Comment 8 Germán Poo-Caamaño 2007-08-20 13:57:08 UTC
I made the quick fix, changing end_port to 65535.

This problem has been fixed in the development version. The fix will be available in the next major software release. Thank you for your bug report.