Re: Adding "dangerous" checks?

[Ron <ron () skullsecurity net>]

Michael Pattrick wrote:
> I cant comment on the legallity, but from [0]:
> > intrusive
> >     These are scripts that cannot be classified in the safe category because the risks
> > are too high that they will crash the target system, use up significant resources on
> > the target host (such as bandwidth or CPU time), or otherwise be perceived as
> > malicious by the target's system administrators.
> ...
> > vuln
> >     These scripts check for specific known vulnerabilities and generally only report
> > results if they are found.
>
> Since these categories pretty much state that they will cause damage
> to the target, I think it is ok to create a script that crashes a host
> as long as it is labeled properly.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> [0] http://nmap.org/book/nse-usage.html#nse-categories

You're right, it's reasonable in that sense. On the other hand, if
somebody is going to run something that has a reasonable (>10%? >5%?)
chance of crashing a system hard, there should be a little more warning.
For example, dangerous checks won't run unless they specify a special
parameter enabling them (--scripts-args=unsafe=true). Or do you guys
think doing that's redundant with the safe/intrusive categories?

Legally, I'm not really worried. People can use whatever I write for
good or for bad, that's their call. I'm more worried about people
accidentally breaking stuff.

Ron


-- 
Ron Bowes
http://www.skullsecurity.org/
http://www.javaop.com/

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