masscan VS Cppcheck

Can I get banned for mass scanning with https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan or does it slow down any other vms from other persons?

Nope, this doesn't work any more. Shodan checks all ports (so any attackers using data from Shodan already know which ports you have open), and tools like masscan (https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan) let you portscan the entire IPv4 address space in less than 10 minutes.

https://github.com/LogoiLab/mcsl https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan

Changing the default port does nothing for security. It only prevents some basic brute force or default password scripts. Anyone is able to scan for it in no time anyway (https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan).

But it should blow away the far-too-common belief that no-one's after you because you're not interesting enough. IPv4 is smaller than we think. It is not difficult to scan the entire ipv4 space in minutes. And every single one of those is going to knock your door on the way past.

I'm not sure about the article, but the blazingly-fast IP scanner sounds a lot like Masscan. It can scan the entire Internet in 5 minutes and has received a lot of press: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan . https://rushter.com/blog/how-masscan-works/ is one of many articles about it.

Here's an except from the masscan docs:

I dedicated Sunday morning to going over the documentation of the linters we use in the project. The goal was to understand all options and use them in the best way for our project. Seeing their manuals side by side was nice because even very similar things are solved differently. Cppcheck is the most configurable and best documented; JSON Lint lies at the other end.

Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code.

Also check out (cppcheck)[https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck] if you want more static analysis

My browser refuses to open that link. This is better: https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck

cppcheck - Extensible C/C++ static analyzer focused on finding bugs.

and five C/C++ static code analyzers: * clang-tidy * oclint * cppcheck * cpplint (recently added!) * include-what-you-use (recently added!)

Start by feeding your codebase to a static analysis tool like cppcheck, to rule out obvious bound-checking mistakes in it.

Cppcheck is free. I've previously used it with a C++ project.