Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work?
From: David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:47:44 -0600
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 10:10:00AM +0100, Rob Nicholls wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:29:50 -0600, David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:No, that's still not what I was thinking. Can you test the attached script and see if it works for you?It seems to work okay. I've attached an updated version that corrects a typo in one of the FTP error codes and adds a check for 331 after sending a 332 (as, apparently, you sometimes need to send a PASS after an ACCT).My point about removing the loop is that we don't want to treat all reply codes exactly the same for all the commands we send. Like if we get a 220 in response to USER, we want to quit, not send USER again.Ah yes, that "common case" of a "220 Service ready for new user" immediately after a USER command ;) But you're right, we shouldn't send commands repeatedly, especially as a badly written or malicious FTP server could otherwise force the script into an endless loop (until the script/host times out). Your new logic tree seems to handle it okay, although it no longer displays the unusual FTP codes as part of the normal output. Would it be okay to modify the script you commit to provide some additional output if Nmap's verbosity has been increased (e.g. -vv)? I wouldn't mind seeing the more unusual codes in the normal output (e.g. 530, 503) if I increased the verbosity. Also, someone emailed me off-list suggesting we include the FTP server's output (although the existing banner script should show the initial banner, but they seemed to be after the responses during the authentication stage).
Yes, that's cool. Go ahead and commit the new version and whatever changes you think are appropriate. David Fifield _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work?, (continued)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Gutek (May 29)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Richard Miles (May 30)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Fyodor (May 30)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? David Fifield (May 31)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Rob Nicholls (Jun 01)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Gutek (Jun 01)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? David Fifield (Jun 01)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Rob Nicholls (Jun 01)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? David Fifield (Jun 01)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Rob Nicholls (Jun 04)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? David Fifield (Jun 04)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Rob Nicholls (Jun 01)
- RE: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Rob Nicholls (May 23)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Gutek (May 24)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Gutek (May 24)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? Gutek (May 24)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? David Fifield (May 27)
- Re: Sounds like ftp-anon needs work? David Fifield (May 27)