Take the port-to-process-mapping accuracy test!

[Wayne - DiamondCS]

Port-to-process mapping is one thing, but consistent, reliable, accurate results are actually harder to come by than you might think. We encourage everyone on NT4/2K/XP to take this test - feel free to use any and as many port-to-process mappers you like. :)

http://www.diamondcs.com.au/openports/index.php?page=accuracy-challenge

Regards,
Wayne

[Jooske]

Interesting Wayne,
wouldn't the results of the few mappers available for Win9x and Port Explorer show about the same compared with netstat?

[Wayne - DiamondCS]

-{ Quote: "the results of the few mappers available for Win9x" }-
Which other mappers? Port Explorer is the only one available for Win9x, which is why the test can't really be done under that OS - there's nothing to compare Port Explorer against, other than netstat itself ... :)

The main two problems you'll find with other port-to-process mappers are:
1) missing sockets
2) incorrectly reported sockets (ie. one particular mapper is currently telling me that telnet.exe is listening on UDP 135, whereas I know it's connected to TCP 23 on a remote server - it couldn't report that any more wrong if it tried.

[Jooske]

It's so nice to read this again! I'm very happy with PE and we all know why!
But the result you just wrote from that other program is really bad! Should not even be possible!