On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:41:21PM +0200, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> But it does not matter. How many scripts using ssh_cmd_exec() do we have
> now? One? How much is this number going to increase? I think it is safe to
> assume there will never be more than, say, 10 scripts using this function
> (or providing arbitrary input to it). After all, it is desirable to keep
> the number of SSH connections per target as low as possible.
Yes. There is only one script at this time using SSH connections, and
yes we intend to keep that number extremely low. Ideally, I want two SSH
logins at max. This means I'm expecting something like ~ 10 plugins at
max, when we implement local security policies checks (one script per OS
family).
[...]
> Perhaps some kind of "multipass" plugins could be used: during the 1st
> pass, they'd register registry keys they are interested in, a trusted
> script would fetch their values and store them in kb (bonus: the number of
> SMB connections would be reduced dramatically), and during the 2nd pass,
> the plugins would look at kb and report their findings.
Windows is being worked on. We'll enumerate the patches and hotfixes,
and more importantly, we want to move away from the current
registry-centric view to switch to something more high-level. The good
news is that once we're done with that, we can easily perform the
Windows checks over SSH as well.
> > This means that you can very easily check a sensitive plugin just by
> > doing a :
> > grep -l '^#TRUSTED' *.nasl
>
> So this is the official way to distinguish trusted scripts from intrusted
> ones, right?
Yes.
> BTW: script_version ("1.4") in ssh_get_info.nasl is out of date ;)
That's the drawback of signed scripts :)
-- Renaud
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
