mailing list archives
Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies
From: Ron <ron () skullsecurity net>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:17:25 -0600
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:20:10 -0800 David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
I think what Ron is suggesting is something different. The proposal
for strong dependencies would either have implicitly selected
(existing) scripts, or refused to run unless they were manually
selected. What Ron is saying, on the other hand, is that NSE should
check that a dependency exists (in script.db or otherwise), just as a
guard against typos, but still allow you to run dependent scripts
without their dependencies.
I can summarize it thus:
Strong dependencies: dependencies must exist and be run.
Ron: dependencies must exist, whether or not they are run.
Current situation: dependencies need not exist nor be run.
That's correct, thanks for clarifying!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/