mailing list archives
Re: [RFC] NSE Re-categorization
From: "DePriest, Jason R." <jrdepriest () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:03:30 +0100
I like to be sure :)
How do you feel about the actual re-categorized list I posted?
What might be nice is a hierarchy to show which safer tests are
subsets of more "dangerous" or at least more involved tests.
Something like this:
safe --> discovery --> version --> vuln ----->|-> intrusive
\-> auth --->/
with demo and default on their own
A script like netbios-smb-os-discovery.nse does a lot of work. It's
almost intrusive, but probably just a discovery.
The diagram helps me figure out where it should go and "version" seems
fine in that context since it does more than a simple discovery and
you don't want to run it without asking for version detection.
I also don't understand the benefit of having a script that is
"intrusive" also be a "discovery" scan. If it is "intrusive" then I
don't want it running if I am only asking for "discovery."
They should be either "discovery" and relatively benign or "intrusive"
and used with intent.
Explain the logic between having a script in both categories. Maybe I
just don't "get it."
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
Archived at http://SecLists.Org
Re: [RFC] NSE Re-categorization - Vulnerability category Tom Sellers (Jun 13)
Re: [RFC] NSE Re-categorization Kris Katterjohn (Jun 18)
- Re: [RFC] NSE Re-categorization, (continued)