HomeCalendarCertificationsColumnsFeaturesForumResourcesVitals
 
Image
 
Latest Additions
 
EH-Net Login
Welcome Guest.
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
Who's Online
We have 38 guests and 3 members online
EH-Net Donations

Enter Amount:
$
Google Ads
EH-Net News Feeds
Latest Additions
Book Recommendations



 
Advertisement

You are here: Home arrow Forum arrow Ethical Hacking Discussions and Related Certificationsarrow Network Pen Testingarrow Accurate Nessus Results
Ethical Hacker Community Forums
December 02, 2008, 12:51:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ChicagoCon 2-Day Ethical Hacking Conference with MS Blue Hats Oct 31 - Nov 1. Tickets Only $100! www.chicagocon.com/content/view/103/51/
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
« previous next »
  Print  
Author Topic: Accurate Nessus Results  (Read 2425 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BillV
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 869


View Profile
« on: May 10, 2007, 02:11:53 PM »
I'm using Nessus 3 on Windows XP and I have a class C range to scan. I've run the scan with all (safe) plug-ins enabled. I have gotten different results every scan with various warnings and holes showing up and not showing up. Is there a way to be more accurate with nessus (short of using another scanner)?
Logged
oleDB
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2007, 02:23:11 PM »
Are all the addresses static? If not, and its DHCP, that may account for the inconsistent results. What exactly is the Class C network that your scanning?
Logged
BillV
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 869


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2007, 02:58:35 PM »
Yes, all the addresses are static. I'm not scanning an internal network, I'm scanning the external IP range for our company. I'm thinking it could be something with the firewall since all the traffic is going through it.
Logged
oleDB
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2007, 03:10:21 PM »
How is the natting done? mapped one to one or via Nat pool?

Also, loadbalancers like F5's can mangle results. Also, with some firewalls will answer for servers even if the server isn't listening on that port.
Logged
BillV
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 869


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2007, 08:15:45 AM »
Yes, the NATing is done one-to-one. We do have a load balancer, but I'm not 100% sure where it sits in the architecture. I think I'm probably running into the issue with the firewall answering for servers that aren't really listening as you've mentioned. I'll check into each of those. Thanks for the ideas.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com 		Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.05 seconds with 22 queries.
 
Sponsors

cwnp_moto__120x90.gif

Polls
During the most recent election, I:
 
Support EH-Net

Support EH-Net by
Buying all of your
Amazon items using
the search bar above.
cbtnuggets_logo_125.jpg
Try CBT Nuggets Free!
Recent Forum Topics
Vote For EH-Net

progenic.com
Click here to Vote!

Sadikhov.com
Top IT Cert Sites

binarica.com
Binarica Logo

Add to Technorati Favorites
technorati fave

 
         
Advertisement

© 2008 The Ethical Hacker Network
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.