Metasploit mailing list archives
Re: GitHub Acceptance guidelines - MSF automation modules
From: Nathan Einwechter <neinwechter () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:34:06 -0500
Thanks for the clarification and details. The issue was opened by an end-user (not me), but he has the patch and I'll leave it for now unless I hear any more about the issue. I'd rather not create a fork unless there is significant demand or the fork is for a subset of tools or for a larger piece that if of no interest to the mainline under the guidelines (i.e. a conversion of the routerpwn site to an MSF module I've been chipping away at). I like the focus that you're providing for future development, it's definitely the right move to make to keep the framework from flying out of control. Take care. -- Nathan On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:54 AM, HD Moore <hdm () metasploit com> wrote:
On 11/10/2011 7:50 PM, Nathan Einwechter wrote:I submitted a patch to an open issue someone had created in Redmine some time ago that fixed some issues that caused file_autopwn to basically not work at all. After the patch was applied and tested (by both the issue opener and myself), file_autopwn seemed to be working quiet well. Today Tod rejected the issue indicating that we're moving things over to GitHub (see the blog post) and to take a look at the wiki there for more details on what should/shouldn't be submitted (specifically the acceptance guidelines), which leaves me a bit confused as to what to do at this point. The guidelines say basically that automation should no longer be submitted as a part of the "MSF core" (my words) due to the utter failure of some of these types of modules in the past. If file_autopwn is going to be dropped out of the framework, then I have no problem letting the patch die. However, if it's going to be left in MSF, then the patch should definitely be applied (if not my patch, then at least some fix) as otherwise the module is 90% broken. Can anyone provide a bit of clarification at this point as to what to do (or not do) in this position? I have no problem doing a fork+pull on github to get this patch in, but don't want to go ahead and do this if it's no longer needed/wanted.The file_autopwn module had bigger problems besides the items you highlighted. To be frank, it wasn't worth the maintenance overhead and we had yet to see a single *user* ask about it, let alone be aware of it. It goes against the framework scope in terms how it operates and the original contributor wasn't involved in maintenance. Feel free to take a copy of the module and maintain it in a fork of the metasploit-framework git project. -HD _______________________________________________ https://mail.metasploit.com/mailman/listinfo/framework
_______________________________________________ https://mail.metasploit.com/mailman/listinfo/framework
Current thread:
- GitHub Acceptance guidelines - MSF automation modules Nathan Einwechter (Nov 10)
- Re: GitHub Acceptance guidelines - MSF automation modules HD Moore (Nov 10)
- Re: GitHub Acceptance guidelines - MSF automation modules Efrain Torres (Nov 11)
- Re: GitHub Acceptance guidelines - MSF automation modules Nathan Einwechter (Nov 11)
- Re: GitHub Acceptance guidelines - MSF automation modules HD Moore (Nov 10)