Portscanner

A fast and simple port scanner created in golang. for times when you are not able to use nmap!

Usage

Port scanner [-h|--help] -i|--ip "<value>" [-p|--port "<value>"] [-l|--protocol "<value>"] [-c|--common "<value>"] [-r|--range "<value>"] [-d|--duration "<value>"]

clone the repo.

$ git clone https://github.com/amir-shiati/portscanner.git

Change directory.

$ cd portscanner/

Give the binary file permission to execute if needed.

$ chmod -R 775 ./port_scanner

Simply run the binary file

$ ./port_scanner -i 127.0.0.1 -p 80

Oputput

Scanning port...
Results:
Port:80   State:Open   Protocol:tcp

Arguments

You can do much more here is a list of arguments that you can use:

Short form of argument (-)	Long form of argument (- -)	Description
i	ip	Required specifies an ip that you like to scan. must be a valid ip
p	port	specifies a port that you like to scan. must be a number between '0' and '65535'
l	protocol	specifies the protocol. must be either 'tcp' or 'udp' default value is 'tcp'
c	common	if 'true' scans common ports: '0' to '1024' default value is 'false'
r	range	if 'true' asks for ranges default value is 'false'
d	duration	duration of connection. must be a value between '7' and '300' ***default value is '10' ***

Examples

Command

$ ./port_scanner -i 127.0.0.1 -c true

Output

Scanning ports...
Port:80   State:Open   Protocol:tcp
Port:443   State:Open   Protocol:tcp
Port:444   State:Open   Protocol:tcp
Port:631   State:Open   Protocol:tcp
Port:902   State:Open   Protocol:tcp

Command

$ ./port_scanner -i 127.0.0.1 -r true

Output

Enter the firts port number: 0
Enter the seconde port number: 1024
Scanning ports...
Port:80   State:Open   Protocol:tcp
Port:443   State:Open   Protocol:tcp
Port:444   State:Open   Protocol:tcp
Port:631   State:Open   Protocol:tcp
Port:902   State:Open   Protocol:tcp

Command

$ ./port_scanner -i 127.0.0.1 -c true -d 15 -l udp

runs the first example with a 15 seconde connection duration and using udp protocol.

Notice

I'm fairly new to the golang world so the code is probably not so well written or efficient!!!