Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: http-methods.nse implementation
From: David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:20:39 -0700
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 02:57:57PM +0100, Vlatko Kosturjak wrote:
On 03/08/2011 02:49 PM, Rob Nicholls wrote:On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:33:48 +0200, Josh Amishav-Zlatin wrote:Would it make more sense for the script to have a base list of methods that it checks for regardless of whether OPTIONS is enabled or not and then appends that list based on the results of an OPTIONS request?I'd prefer not to trust OPTIONS at all, and perhaps rename the existing option or add something like http-methods.force or http-methods.thorough to test a long hardcoded base list of methods like you suggest. The current "retest" option doesn't really retest the methods, it simply performs a more thorough test based on the original OPTIONS response (which, as you point out, could be inaccurate).I think we discussed this already some time ago: http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2010/q1/618 ...and I remember, decision was to have it like this.
I don't know, I think it's fine to test from a static set of method names (including invalid names). If someone writes a good patch I think we'd accept it. It just perhaps shouldn't be default. 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: http-methods.nse implementation David Fifield (Apr 27)
- Re: http-methods.nse implementation David Fifield (Apr 27)
- Re: http-methods.nse implementation Josh Amishav-Zlatin (May 12)
- Re: http-methods.nse implementation David Fifield (Apr 27)