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

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Wayne - DiamondCS, Jul 30, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wayne - DiamondCS

    Wayne - DiamondCS Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,533
    Location:
    Perth, Oz
  2. Jooske

    Jooske Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Posts:
    9,713
    Location:
    Netherlands, EU near the sea
    Interesting Wayne,
    wouldn't the results of the few mappers available for Win9x and Port Explorer show about the same compared with netstat?
     
  3. Wayne - DiamondCS

    Wayne - DiamondCS Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,533
    Location:
    Perth, Oz
    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.
     
  4. Jooske

    Jooske Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Posts:
    9,713
    Location:
    Netherlands, EU near the sea
    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!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.