Re: Requests for script dependencies

[Patrick Donnelly <batrick () batbytes com>]

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM, David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
> Before we had these runlevel definitions different from 1.0:
>
> 0.5: smb-brute
> 2.0: smb-check-vulns snmp-sysdescr p2p-conficker
>
> The dependencies capture all of that except for p2p-conficker. I can't
> remember why p2p-conficker is in runlevel 2 to begin with; does anyone
> know? It's in "default" and "safe" so it can't be because of a risk of
> crashing. Probably we can just leave it out of the dependencies.

Here's what Ron wrote when I asked him about it:

"I don't think p2p-conficker runs on anything. The reason it has a
non-zero runlevel is because it's slow, and therefore I wanted it to run
concurrently with the other conficker script, which in turn has a
runlevel because it breaks things."


-- 
-Patrick Donnelly

"Let all men know thee, but no man know thee thoroughly: Men freely
ford that see the shallows."

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