On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

A full scan needs just 0.5 TB of data per TCP port, so "roll your own" is definitely an option. But I expect that any halfway decent hosting provider will start asking questions after the first billion packets or so, and at least over here, broadband access without abuse management lacks sufficient upload bandwidth, making the results difficult to interpret because the measurements would span several days.

Assuming you're scanning with 40 byte SYNs, you're going to be looking at an 84 byte Ethernet frame per port. If you're doing a 65535-port port scan, it'll use about 44Mbits of data. This means on a 1Gbit/s port, you could do around 22 scans per second. That'd be around 57.82 million scans a month. Buying a gig of cheap bandwidth for a month can cost $1000. So each scan would be about 0.002 cents if you just wanted to cover the costs. Of course this is assuming that you manage to have enough things to scan to do 22 per second for an entire month. Combine that with the fact that the person would most likely like to make a profit, and you'd be looking at probably at least 0.1 cents per scan. Either way, in the US at least, it's not legal to port scan random machines on the internet, so this was a rather useless exercise. (And I probably made some calculations errors anyways :) Not to mention that the tool would probably just be used to packet other sites, since 44Mbits is fairly non-negligible. Cheers. -- Darius Jahandarie