Printable View
Allright well I issued the following command with nmap
For some reason it doesn't want to work all I get is an error which states the following :Quote:
nmap localhost
What does "unable to determine what interface to route packets through to 127.0.0.1 mean" ? Any suggestions or insight would be appreciated.Quote:
Starting nmap 3.48 (http://www.insecure.org/nmap) at 2003-12-01 03:22 Eastern Time
Unable to determine what interface to route packets through to 127.0.0.1 QUITTING!
I don't know what is causing the error. It might be solved, however, if you specify which interface to use directly, it might work. Try the following:
nmap -S 127.0.0.1 -e /dev/eth0 localhost
-S tells nmap which source address to include in the outgoing packets, I presume this is so you can route replies to a specified host
-e tells it which interface to use. I am assuming you have an ethernet card in there, and that it is mapped to /dev/eth0
Otherwise replace the /dev/eth0 with the name of your communication device.
All this is assuming you are running linux. It should work for Windows too, but a different device name would be used.
/edit
OK I just tried it under Win2k. Apparently Win2k doesn't support running of nmap on local loopback interfaces. So if you're running it, try specifying your IP address instead of the loopback address. It might work then.
edit/
Actually I'am running windows 98 on my computer and it never crossed my mind to use my real ip instead of localhost. But it works when I use place my real ip instead of localhost though.
Quote:
nmap localhost
^--- I am still wondering why this wont work though ???
I guess all Win versions don't support it on loopback then. Win2k gave me a different error at the command line. But it works on loopback under linux.
I wonder why that is :confused:
You don't have all the features you need if you use the tcp/ip stack from win9x.
Even W2K and XP don't have all the same features as a un*x tcp/ip stack.
Atleast not (all) the features you need for nmap.
Psssssst!!! Three words, RAW socket support. :) Actually, this is one of the major "things" needed. There are a few others but this one is on top of the list.
Just thought I would add this:Quote:
Originally posted here by thehorse13
Psssssst!!! Three words, RAW socket support. :) Actually, this is one of the major "things" needed. There are a few others but this one is on top of the list.
Quote:
Originally posted here by cheyenne1212
I just got these in my email and thought they were pretty funny. So I'll share them with you.
Why We Love Children
1. A kindergarten pupil told his teacher he'd found a cat, but it was dead.
"How do you know that the cat was dead?" she asked her pupil.
"Because I pissed in its ear and it didn't move," answered the child
innocently.
You did WHAT ? ! ?" the teacher exclaimed in surprise.
"You know,"explained the boy, "I leaned over and went 'Pssst!' and it
didn't move."
Since when do people here count on Windows supporting the full Shell commands/programs/scripts/equivalents? Sure, it can imitate. But its never been fully up to date.
Also, try PenguiNet. Its a pretty good Shell emulator for Windows.
http://download.com.com/3000-2155-10...ml?tag=lst-0-4
XShell may also work
http://download.com.com/3000-2155-10239658.html
Let me know how these things turn out for you. :-)
Now what exactly is the difference between the windows tcp/ip stack and the *nix tcp/ip stack ? Just really curious on wanting to know and learn some more.
I think the biggest difference is raw socket support as TH13 pointed out. What this means is you can programmaticly create any type of packet you want with all the options/flags, source ip, dest ip etc. you can think of. With raw sockets you could create packets wich would normaly be illegal. Like setting both the SYN and FIN flags. Or create packets with a fake checksum or.....the options are endless. You can really mess up a packet if you wanted to ;)