"Datdamwuf of wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This thread died, I'd like to revive it. What is the difference > between "enable all but dangerous" and enabling "safe checks"?
"Enable all but dangerous plugins" just selects everything but ACT_DENIAL and ACT_DESTRUCTIVE_ATTACK "Safe checks" also disable those plugins (*), and sets the safe flag, which change the behaviour of most other plugins (i.e. they will rely on banners instead of performing the real attack). Generic plugins (e.g. overflows in HTTP requests) are disabled too. So currently, "safe checks" is safer than "Enable all but dangerous plugins". (*) In the future, ACT_DESTRUCTIVE_ATTACK and ACT_DENIAL should be enabled too, if they test the safe_check flags. > Is there any thing in the scripts that will tell me what changes if > I enable safe checks for a particular plugin? Some code like "if (safe_checks()) ..." > Soooo, can we have a comment or some other identifier for the > plugins that are *likely* to bring down a service? *Any* plugin may bring down a service. Read nessus-core/doc/WARNING.En > in many instances there is a *completely* safe check that relies on > a banner grab to identify a vuln and then there is another check > that actually executes an exploit Not as far as I know. Definitely not "in many instance". Any example? -- mailto:arboi@;bigfoot.com GPG Public keys: http://michel.arboi.free.fr/pubkey.txt http://michel.arboi.free.fr/ http://arboi.da.ru/ FAQNOPI de fr.comp.securite : http://faqnopi.da.ru/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]: general discussions about Nessus. * To unsubscribe, send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe nessus" in the body.
