| Internet-wide scanning services are widely used for attack surface discovery across organizations and the Internet. Enterprises, government agencies, and researchers rely on these tools to assess risks to Internet-facing infrastructure. However, their reliability and trustworthiness remain largely unexamined. This paper addresses this gap by comparing results from three commercial scanners – Shodan, ONYPHE, and LeakIX – with findings from our independent experiments using verified Nuclei templates, designed to identify specific vulnerabilities through crafted benign requests. We found that the payload-based detections of Shodan are mostly confirmed. Yet, Nuclei finds many more vulnerable endpoints, so defenders might face massive underreporting. For Shodan’s banner-based detections, the opposite issue arises: a significant overreporting of false positives. This indicates that banner-based detections are unreliable. Moreover, three commercial services and Nuclei scans exhibit significant discrepancies. Our work has implications for industry users, policymakers, and the many academic researchers who rely on the results provided by these attack surface management services. By highlighting their shortcomings in vulnerability monitoring, this work serves as a call for action to advance and standardize such services to enhance their trustworthiness. |