Nmap Development: Re: Fix for HTTP_open_proxy.nse

[Sven Klemm <sven () c3d2 de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Vlatko Kosturjak wrote:
|> I think it's not necessary to do regular expression-matching here as
|> the service field can only have values from either nmap-services or
|> nmap-service-probes. A better fix for the portrule is probably
|> portrule =
|> shortport.port_or_service({3128,8000,8080},{'squid-http','http-proxy'})
|
| If you take a look at original source, it checked for following:
|
| if      (port.number == 3128 or port.number == 8080 or port.service ==
| "http-proxy" or port.service == "squid-proxy" or port.service ==
| "squid-proxy?")
|
| So, it checked for "squid-proxy" and "squid-proxy?". Your sugestion
| wouldn't detect that (it's probably older version of squid detection
| display). Not sure if we need that, but just want to make sure we don't
| miss anything.
|
| Also, does portrule you suggested detect "squid-http?" and
"http-proxy?"?

There is no "squid-http?" or "http-proxy?" service. The question mark
after the service name is shown by nmap in the commandline output when
you scan with service detection enabled but nmap could not verify the
service on the port.
In this case port.service would still be "squid-http" or "http-proxy"
without the question mark.

| Let me know your thoughts, so I can write new patch according to our
| discussion.

David has already merged your patch and my portrule suggestion and
committed it (revision 10456).

Cheers,
Sven


- --
Sven Klemm
http://cthulhu.c3d2.de/~sven/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjlznYACgkQevlgTHEIT4a+wwCbByvGdWCTFcha1Y2GwlFx1720
P6sAn3A06/zoQsia8MpDG17gaFXDS1ig
=GrY8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org