Re: Adding new database tables in Metasploit

[egypt () metasploit com]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Ludovic Courgnaud
<ludovic.courgnaud () etu unilim fr> wrote:
> > Any additions to the existing migrations will result in a conflict when
> > we add a new migration to the tree (fairly often).
> > If the table you are thinking of is relevant to the rest of the users as
> > well and fits into the overall design, we can consider the change for
> > the trunk as well.
>
> Thank you for this quick response.
>
> Well actually I am developing a Metasploit plugin for Cross-Site Scripting
> vulnerability. Each XSS attack is a module implemented the same way that
> Metasploit ones (auxiliaries).
>
> For this reason I need new tables to manage properly (and in a Metasploit
> way) things like curently active victims (zombies), attack logs for each
> victim, running attacks.
> I know there will be a conflict when updating the tree but for now it is the
> only way I found to solve my problem although this is not necessarily the
> best.
>
> Curently, I added these tables :
> - victims : Victims information => victims information linked to {0-1}
> attack and {1} attack server
> - attacks : Attacks (launched module or Metasploit exploit) linked to one or
> many victims => module name, module service URL
> - logs    : Result of the attack execution inside a victim's browser =>
> result linked to an attack and a victim
> - servers : Active attack server launched by the plugin => server info
> [host, port, uri]
>
> Maybe that these tables fit into the overall design ?
>
> LC
>
> _______________________________________________
> https://mail.metasploit.com/mailman/listinfo/framework

As a short-term solution, you can just name your migrations something
like 999_name.rb to avoid conflicts.

egypt
_______________________________________________
https://mail.metasploit.com/mailman/listinfo/framework