Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies

[Ron <ron () skullsecurity net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:20:10 -0800 David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
> I think what Ron is suggesting is something different. The proposal
> for strong dependencies would either have implicitly selected
> (existing) scripts, or refused to run unless they were manually
> selected. What Ron is saying, on the other hand, is that NSE should
> check that a dependency exists (in script.db or otherwise), just as a
> guard against typos, but still allow you to run dependent scripts
> without their dependencies.
>
> I can summarize it thus:
> Strong dependencies: dependencies must exist and be run.
> Ron: dependencies must exist, whether or not they are run.
> Current situation: dependencies need not exist nor be run.
That's correct, thanks for clarifying! 

Ron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk1LDVgACgkQ2t2zxlt4g/R9igCfWC3pHO2BpZ2dbcmvWO34mgPC
0k4An0yt+tYmx48WrgD8V/Ll1xGDZmtt
=XpJ/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/