scanrand – Download Stateless TCP Scanner with Syn Cookies

Use Netsparker


Scanrand is extremely quick and effective port scanner. It works by forking two distinct processes:

  • One to send the initial queries
  • One to receive responses and reconcile them from the above

This makes it extremely fast.

If you haven’t heard of the suite, Scanrand is one of the five tools in Paketto Keiretsu by Dan “Effugas” Kaminsky of Doxpara Research.

Scanrand implements numerous options; reasonable defaults are selected when no specific guidance is received from the user. The only thing mandated is a target destination, which may be specified using either a FQDN(Fully Qualified Domain Name) or a numeric specification.

These numerics may employ any number of dashes, commas, or combination thereof at the same time. For example, scanrand 10.0.1-255.1-10,20:80,137-139 works fine.

More ports will be scanned by default when scanning a single host than when sca
nning a network. Scanrand is able to estimate remote hopcount by examining incoming TTLs.

Note please to install scanrand you need to first install the provided libnet, libtomcrypt and libpcap tarballs.

It’s a good alternative to nmap for certain purposes

You can read a good article on Scanrand here:

Scanrand Dissected: A New Breed of Network Scanner

The article includes nmap vs scanrand.

You can download Scanrand here (as part of Paketto):

paketto-1.10.tar.gz

Or read more here.

Posted in: Hacking Tools, Networking Hacking

, ,


Latest Posts:


Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner For Linux Now Available Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner For Linux Now Available
Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner For Linux is now available, now you get all of the functionality of Acunetix, with all of the dependability of Linux.
Gerix WiFi Cracker - Wireless 802.11 Hacking Tool With GUI Gerix WiFi Cracker – Wireless 802.11 Hacking Tool With GUI
Gerix WiFi cracker is an easy to use Wireless 802.11 Hacking Tool with a GUI, it was originally made to run on BackTrack and this version has been updated for Kali (2018.1).
Malcom - Malware Communication Analyzer Malcom – Malware Communication Analyzer
Malcom is a Malware Communication Analyzer designed to analyze a system's network communication using graphical representations of network traffic.
WepAttack - WLAN 802.11 WEP Key Hacking Tool WepAttack – WLAN 802.11 WEP Key Hacking Tool
WepAttack is a WLAN open source Linux WEP key hacking tool for breaking 802.11 WEP keys using a wordlist based dictionary attack.
Eraser - Windows Secure Erase Hard Drive Wiper Eraser – Windows Secure Erase Hard Drive Wiper
Eraser is a hard drive wiper for Windows which allows you to run a secure erase and completely remove sensitive data from your hard drive by overwriting it several times with carefully selected patterns.
Insecure software versions are a problem Web Security Stats Show XSS & Outdated Software Are Major Problems
Netsparker just published some anonymized Web Security Stats about the security vulnerabilities their online solution identified on their users’ web applications and web services during the last 3 years.


18 Responses to scanrand – Download Stateless TCP Scanner with Syn Cookies

  1. goodpeople December 10, 2007 at 3:16 pm #

    Nice tool to have next to nmap.

  2. mumble December 10, 2007 at 3:29 pm #

    Unless you’re trying to make someone’s IDS jack clear out of the rack and land in the sysadmin’s lap, speed is probably not your main concern. The correct hacking tool for this job is GNU screen. Start a screen session with a nice, slow, low-impact scan that won’t set off the IDS – then suspend the session and go make yourself something to eat and a fresh pot of coffee. Later, re-connect to the machine and pick up your results.

  3. net2004eng December 10, 2007 at 3:42 pm #

    Scanrand is a very fast scanner that has been around for a little while. This tool is integrated into the BiDiBLAH framework as well.

    @mumble

    I agree, I would think twice about using this scanner depending on what type of environment I am in – if I know there are a IDS/IPS’s’ deployed.

  4. midnitesnake December 10, 2007 at 10:26 pm #

    looks similar to synscan http://bindshell.net/tools/synscan

  5. Pantagruel December 10, 2007 at 11:31 pm #

    Like -Mumble- and the article comparing scanrand and nmap mentions, if you want every to light up like a X-mas tree take scanrand. I did a run, it is hardly subtle and will point into the users direction. But as with many tools, it sure is another usefull addition to your toolbox, albeit one for the quick and dirty work.

  6. mumble December 11, 2007 at 12:09 am #

    This is a it different from synscan. While they’re both half-open (syn) scanners, synscan doesn’t use the reverse syncookies approach. What would be an interesting hack for scanrand is to run the packet generator on one box, and the receiver on a different box. After all, you don’t actually have to receive the packets at all – just sniff them – so the dest. box doesn’t even have to be involved – it just has to be on the same lan segment as the destination. ARP ARP :-)

  7. dirty December 11, 2007 at 5:17 am #

    -T 5 in nmap will also wake the neighbors too…the speed function is more for internal testing where its known you are testing…. @mumble- definitely agree slow and easy is the way for malicioussneaky probes…

    Definitely a good addition to the toolbox though….

  8. Sir Henry December 14, 2007 at 4:53 pm #

    My question is how the sys packets look to the firewall or IDS compared to those sent during a normal handshake? I have read that the syn packets being sent from different scanners are crafted differently than those sent during a legitimate handshake.

  9. net2004eng December 14, 2007 at 5:10 pm #

    @Sir Henry

    Isn’t the goal of sending a syn scan to illicit a response or no response from the end host. I know you can craft packets with hping, nemesis, etc.. but the goal here is typically different.

    In respect to the actual syn’s sent by nmap, scanrand, unicornscan, etc… I would inspect the packets with tcpdump/windump while they leave your machine, and take a look at the way they appear when they arrive at the destinaition. I know MS and Linux implement the tcp stack in different ways, and this very well could imapct he way packets leave your machine, but that would be independent of the tool… Also, I know with snort, that it can identify what scanner you are using, but I think this is based off of a collection of multiple captures…if you send a single syn to one host, I don’t think Snort, nor any other IDS/IPS system, would be so sensitive to be able to tell you what tool is performing the scanning…and you wouldn’t want it to either (at least that might be way too sensitive for me)!

    This being said, I’m not an IDS/IPS expert by any means…

  10. Sir Henry December 14, 2007 at 5:33 pm #

    Nor would I proclaim expertise in the ways of IDS/IPS. I do know, however, that if I am sending a SYN packet, I do not want there to be a false negative or drop from the FW because it is crafted in a way that can be detected as a scanner packet. With my SYN scan, I would want to know which hosts are truly alive and not just dropping because they know I am scanning and not embarking on a true SYN request. So, although I do agree with some points, my point is to know that my scan is obtaining all information available and not experiencing false negatives.

  11. goodpeople December 17, 2007 at 11:29 am #

    Different target OSses have different responses. You can never be sure that you don’t have false positives or negatives.

  12. Sir Henry December 17, 2007 at 11:35 am #

    I agree, goodpeople, but my interest is eliminating a potential for a false negative as much as I can. Just one example of that is to simply make sure that my probes are going out in the same way a legitimate connection probe would. I would hate to be doing consulting work for a firm and realize only after the fact that, had I crafted the packets in a different way than how they are sent from a scanner, I might have gotten different, perhaps more sensitive, responses.

  13. mumble December 17, 2007 at 12:12 pm #

    It would have to be a pretty tight environment for the admin to get away with using a passive OS-specific firewall rule on a box. I do know the the OpenBSDs PF firewall can do it, but very few people would. Too high a probability of running into one or two machines which are running an odd OS version and flag incorrectly.

    When NMAP is running as root, it can be set up to use direct packet injection. It does so by default on windows boxes to get around the WinXP-SP2 raw sockets disabled problem. If NMAPs packet structure is a problem, it really wouldn’t be all that hard to make it look like anything you want it to.

    As the cook says, “Use the Sauce…”

  14. mumble December 17, 2007 at 12:22 pm #

    Thinking about this in slightly more depth — there’s probably a good article in this for Phrack or 2600… Especially if you can identify the scanner’s signature well enough that the false positive rate is down in the noise.

    I know that you can immediately forget about the idea of detecting the difference between a “Connect” scan and the real deal, because the scanners all use the OS connect() implementation, as far as I know. Fin and Xmas-tree scans are easy to see on a stateful inspection firewall, and most will just drop the packet. (PF, for example, will happily drop it on the floor…) I’ll have to set up a few boxes and see what happens.

  15. Sir Henry December 17, 2007 at 2:08 pm #

    @mumble:

    Your last comment is exactly that of which I am speaking. Let me know what you find out with your testing. I would be very interested to find out the results.

  16. mumble December 17, 2007 at 3:11 pm #

    @Sir Henry
    Drop me a line. GPG Key ID: D005B227. You can use the email address on the keyserver. I’d post it here, but…spambots.

  17. Sir Henry December 17, 2007 at 3:39 pm #

    @mumble:

    Will do. It would be cool to work on something like this with you.

  18. eM3rC January 6, 2008 at 10:14 pm #

    I would personally prefer nmap over scanrand but very nice post.

    @Sir Henry and mumble

    It would be awesome to hear what you guys come up with.