05 Networking · Nmap · Inventory comparison
Network inventory drift
In an isolated Docker network, an Nmap comparison identifies one missing device, one new device, one address change, and one uncertain observation.
- Issue
- Which differences between the expected inventory and the observed target list need action, and which observation is too uncertain to treat as fact?
- Decisive evidence
- The inserted state reported a changed address, a missing device, a new device, and an uncertain observation.E02
- Result
- The report separates confirmed changes from one uncertain observation, then returns zero findings after correction.
- Boundary
- This is an isolated container network with explicit owned targets.Full limit
- Completion
- Complete within stated scope
- Execution
- Isolated Docker and Nmap run
- Review
- Manifest and technical review
- Evidence
- Selected evidence on this page
- Docker internal network
- Nmap
- Python
- Graphviz
Project scope
What was built and checked.
Project record: The comparison tool, expected inventory, scan scope, isolated container states, reviewed output, and public package.
Interactive view
Compare the declared and observed states.
Only the four inserted differences change between the baseline and failure views.
All declared targets are present and no additional target is observed.
- 01Edge routerExpectednormal
- 02WorkstationAddress checknormal
- 03Backup NASPresence checknormal
- 04PrinterObservation confidencenormal
- 05New deviceUnexpected targetunknown
One address changes, one device disappears, one new device appears, and one observation remains uncertain.
- 01Edge routerExpectednormal
- 02WorkstationAddress checkchanged
- 03Backup NASPresence checkfailed
- 04PrinterObservation confidenceunknown
- 05New deviceUnexpected targetchanged
The declared devices and addresses return, and the comparison reports zero findings.
- 01Edge routerExpectednormal
- 02WorkstationAddress checknormal
- 03Backup NASPresence checknormal
- 04PrinterObservation confidencenormal
- 05New deviceUnexpected targetunknown
Comparison sequence
Declare the expected inventory, insert the differences, then compare the corrected state.
- 01
Declare the expected devices, addresses, and the exact owned scan targets before execution.
- 02
Record a zero-finding baseline, then introduce one missing device, one new device, one address change, and one uncertain observation.
- 03
Run the same comparison after correction and after rebuilding the original state.
- 04
Export only documentation addresses, sanitized topology files, result JSON, and checksums.
Evidence from the lab
The checks used to reach the conclusion.
Selected outputs from the lab. Sensitive and unnecessary details are omitted.
Full evidence archive2 additional artifacts+
baseline : 0 findings
failure : 4 findings
changed_ip · missing_device · new_device · uncertain_observation
correction : 0 findings
rollback : 0 findings
clean repeat : 0 findingsPublic package
• state JSON and topology files
• sanitized Nmap XML
• environment and dependency records
• test output and SHA-256 checksumsResult and limits
What changed, and what this lab does not prove.
Result
The inserted state produced four expected finding types. Correction, rollback, and the repeat each returned zero findings.
Limit
This is an isolated container network with explicit owned targets. It does not claim real-time monitoring, 802.1Q behavior, or an enterprise deployment.
Claims and evidence
What the evidence supports.
The finding types apply only to the declared lab inventory.
EvidenceE02E04The retests use the same isolated target list and expected inventory.
EvidenceE03E04