Pros of Nmap

• Extensive feature set with advanced scanning techniques
• Large community and extensive documentation
• Supports scripting for custom functionality

Cons of Nmap

• Slower scanning speed, especially for large networks
• Steeper learning curve for advanced features
• Resource-intensive for large-scale scans

Code Comparison

Nmap (C++):

void scan_tcp_connect(Target *target, u16 *portarray, int numports,
                      struct scan_lists *ports) {
  // TCP connect scan implementation
}

RustScan (Rust):

pub fn scan_port(ip: IpAddr, port: u16, timeout: Duration) -> PortState {
    // TCP connect scan implementation
}

Key Differences

• RustScan focuses on fast initial port discovery, while Nmap offers comprehensive scanning capabilities
• RustScan is written in Rust, emphasizing speed and memory safety, whereas Nmap is primarily C/C++
• RustScan can integrate with Nmap for detailed scans, combining speed with Nmap's advanced features

Use Cases

• Nmap: In-depth network analysis, vulnerability scanning, and complex network mapping
• RustScan: Rapid initial port discovery, especially useful for large-scale scans or time-sensitive situations

Community and Development

• Nmap: Large, established community with long-term development history
• RustScan: Newer project with growing community, focused on modern development practices and performance optimization

Pros of masscan

• Written in C, potentially offering better performance for large-scale scans
• More mature project with a longer development history
• Supports a wider range of scanning techniques and options

Cons of masscan

• Less user-friendly interface compared to RustScan
• Requires more manual configuration and setup
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

masscan:

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    struct Masscan masscan[1];
    masscan_init(masscan);
    masscan_command_line(masscan, argc, argv);
    masscan_start(masscan);
    return 0;
}

RustScan:

fn main() -> CliResult {
    let mut app = App::new();
    let matches = app.get_matches();
    let config = Config::from_args(&matches)?;
    Scanner::new(config).run()
}

Key Differences

• Language: masscan is written in C, while RustScan is written in Rust
• User Interface: RustScan focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while masscan offers more advanced features
• Speed: Both tools aim for high-speed scanning, but masscan may have an edge in raw performance
• Target Audience: RustScan is more beginner-friendly, while masscan caters to advanced users and security professionals

Conclusion

Choose masscan for complex, large-scale scans with advanced requirements. Opt for RustScan if you prefer a more user-friendly tool with a focus on simplicity and modern language features.

Pros of naabu

• Written in Go, which may offer better performance for certain tasks
• Supports multiple scanning techniques (SYN, CONNECT, UDP)
• Includes built-in port database for service fingerprinting

Cons of naabu

• Less focus on speed optimization compared to RustScan
• May have a steeper learning curve for users new to port scanning tools
• Lacks some of the user-friendly features found in RustScan

Code Comparison

RustScan:

let addr = format!("{}:{}", ip, port);
let socket = TcpStream::connect_timeout(&addr.parse().unwrap(), Duration::from_millis(1000));
if let Ok(_) = socket {
    println!("Port {} is open", port);
}

naabu:

conn, err := net.DialTimeout("tcp", fmt.Sprintf("%s:%d", host, port), timeout)
if err != nil {
    return false
}
defer conn.Close()
return true

Both projects aim to provide efficient port scanning capabilities, but they take different approaches. RustScan focuses on speed and simplicity, leveraging Rust's performance benefits. naabu offers more advanced features and scanning techniques, making it suitable for more complex scenarios. The choice between the two depends on the user's specific needs and familiarity with the respective programming languages and ecosystems.

Pros of RustScan

• Faster scanning capabilities due to Rust's performance optimizations
• More robust error handling and memory safety features
• Potentially better cross-platform compatibility

Cons of RustScan

• May have a steeper learning curve for contributors not familiar with Rust
• Possibly smaller community and ecosystem compared to other languages
• Could have longer compilation times, especially for large projects

Code Comparison

RustScan:

use rayon::prelude::*;

fn scan_ports(ip: &str, ports: &[u16]) -> Vec<u16> {
    ports.par_iter()
        .filter(|&&port| TcpStream::connect_timeout(&format!("{}:{}", ip, port).parse().unwrap(), Duration::from_millis(1000)).is_ok())
        .cloned()
        .collect()
}

This code snippet demonstrates the use of Rayon for parallel port scanning, which can significantly improve performance.

Summary

RustScan offers improved performance and safety features due to its implementation in Rust. However, it may present challenges for contributors less familiar with the language and could have a smaller ecosystem compared to alternatives. The code example showcases efficient parallel port scanning, highlighting the potential performance benefits of using Rust for network scanning tasks.

Pros of ZMap

• Written in C, potentially offering better performance for low-level network operations
• More mature project with a larger community and extensive documentation
• Supports a wider range of scanning techniques and protocols

Cons of ZMap

• Less user-friendly interface compared to RustScan
• Slower development cycle and less frequent updates
• More complex setup and configuration process

Code Comparison

ZMap (C):

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    struct gengetopt_args_info args;
    struct cmdline_parser_params *params;
    if (cmdline_parser_ext(argc, argv, &args, &params) != 0) {
        exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
    }

RustScan (Rust):

fn main() -> CliResult {
    let mut app = build_app();
    let matches = app.clone().get_matches();
    let mut config = Config::default();
    config.update_from_args(&matches)?;

Summary

ZMap is a more established and feature-rich network scanner written in C, offering advanced scanning capabilities and potentially better performance. However, it has a steeper learning curve and slower development cycle. RustScan, on the other hand, is a newer, more user-friendly scanner written in Rust, focusing on simplicity and fast scanning. While it may lack some advanced features of ZMap, RustScan offers a more modern and accessible approach to network scanning.