Log entries being omitted when multiple (non-range) ports specified. about masscan

[robertdavidgraham]

I can reproduce. Working on fixing it now.

[robertdavidgraham]

Ok, problem is fixed. It was a bug in how I calculated the "increment" based on "shards". The way shards work is 1/2 and 2/2, rather than 0/2 and 1/2. Thus, I had an off-by-one error. Stupid and obvious :)

[malevolm]

I've recompiled, but still getting some inconsistencies. I don't know if this is just the price of a high PPS, but:

./masscan -sS -p80,22 88.45.209.90
Starting masscan 1.0 (http://bit.ly/14GZzcT) at 2013-09-19 04:48:41 GMT
-- forced options: -sS -Pn -n --randomize-hosts -v --send-eth
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan
Scanning 1 hosts [2 ports/host]
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 88.45.209.90

./masscan -sS -p22,80 88.45.209.90
Starting masscan 1.0 (http://bit.ly/14GZzcT) at 2013-09-19 04:48:33 GMT
-- forced options: -sS -Pn -n --randomize-hosts -v --send-eth
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan
Scanning 1 hosts [2 ports/host]
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 88.45.209.90
Discovered open port 22/tcp on 88.45.209.90

Sometimes no ports are discovered. Is this an inherent part of the scan? Would there be a better suited scan type for accuracy?

Also if I may make a request: could you group matching ports? For cases when you're only interested in machines with both ports open.