Home page logo

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: http-methods.nse implementation
From: David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:58:22 -0700

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 07:20:39PM -0700, David Fifield wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 02:57:57PM +0100, Vlatko Kosturjak wrote:
On 03/08/2011 02:49 PM, Rob Nicholls wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:33:48 +0200, Josh Amishav-Zlatin wrote:
Would it make more sense for the
script to have a base list of methods that it checks for regardless of
whether OPTIONS is enabled or not and then appends that list based on
the results of an OPTIONS request?

I'd prefer not to trust OPTIONS at all, and perhaps rename the existing
option or add something like http-methods.force or http-methods.thorough
to test a long hardcoded base list of methods like you suggest. The
current "retest" option doesn't really retest the methods, it simply
performs a more thorough test based on the original OPTIONS response
(which, as you point out, could be inaccurate).

I think we discussed this already some time ago:
...and I remember, decision was to have it like this.

I don't know, I think it's fine to test from a static set of method
names (including invalid names). If someone writes a good patch I think
we'd accept it. It just perhaps shouldn't be default.

Oops, it had been a while so I forgot that Josh had already written a


I can't get the patch to apply cleanly, and it has some whitespace
problems. It might make sense to keep the old argument name
http-methods.retest instead of replacing it with http-methods.verify,
but in any case the new behavior has to be documented.

David Fifield
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]