Re: Best practice for web vulnerability scripts?

[Daniel Miller <bonsaiviking () gmail com>]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM, George Chatzisofroniou
<sophron () latthi com>wrote:

> I don't think it really worths having standalone scripts that perform
> simple
> checks.
>
> I believe http-enum has to be extended and support the vulnerability
> library.
> That also means that all the fingerprints in the "attacks" category should
> be
> updated and contain a new field with the description table needed for the
> vulns
> library report.

What about splitting http-enum and placing the vulnerability detection
portions into http-vuln (name subject to alteration)?

http-enum is enormous and slow (I often specifically avoid running it for
this reason, even when I want to run as many scripts as possible), and I
can see how someone might only want to check for known vulnerabilities.
This could also allow some changes to the fingerprint "API" that could work
for vuln checks, like reducing some of the vuln library boilerplate with
new fields.

Dan
_______________________________________________
Sent through the dev mailing list
http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/