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

I would like to make the following XML output recommendations:

        - Move <port> from it's current position and wrap it around
          the beginning of each "port" block (starting with <name>).
        - Change current <port> to <vulnerability> or <vuln> (shorter).
        - Fix <data> as much as possible.  I have not looked at the
          data structures inside the C code yet, but, at least in the
          NASL code, the CVE ID is distinguished seperately.  I would
          really prefer to break data up into usable pieces.  Perhaps:
                <cveid>
                <risk>
                <rawbanner>
                <data>

        - Optimally <data> would be further chopped into something
          like <description>, <remediation>, and <exploit>, but my
          guess is a lot of that data is generally missing.
        - Minimal importance: modify <id> to <naslid> to clarify?
        - Possible new structure:

<port>
        <name></name>
        <number></number>
        <proto></proto>
        <vulnerability>
                <serverity></severity>
                <id></id>
                <cveid></cveid>
                <risk></risk>
                <rawbanner></rawbanner>
                <data></data>
        </vulnerability>
</port>
                



- --Randy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 07,
> 2002 11:31 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: XML output.
> 
> 
> I will look at <port> <information> issue and will remove one 
> if the data
> is really the same ( and if Renaud wills it :) ). As for the 
> other stuff,
> I will submit a patch that will put CDATA around all the
> descriptions.  
> 
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 04:12:32PM -0800, Randy Bias wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > In the <results> section of the XML output there seems to be some
> > redundancy between the <port> and <information> tags.  Does
> > anyone know the reasoning behind this?  It seems as if <port> is
> > not only redundant, but possibly confused with the <ports>
> > (plural) tag.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - --Randy
> > 
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use 
> <http://www.pgp.com>
> > 
> > iQA/AwUBPIawwCGJH83OL4I4EQJYZgCfUnFLmSA1aQUF6v9lv/YGwLaogx8AoPdP
> > 9DQ2stTSl9HkDcBZa5D1zPlh
> > =dl6N
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPIkWOiGJH83OL4I4EQLi2ACgh5leXkOJVXiMXHjREirEwBbS3RYAoO9/
Zsnl8H6ZF5Xd5isZ5XJPJ7KX
=4rvR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to