On Monday 10 August 2009 10:51:00 Chandrashekhar B wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >* ssl_ciphers - SSL implementation missing, basic SSLv2 implementation
> >in ssl_funcs.inc, but for this we need SSLv2 and SSLv3 implementation.
> >Should we implement SSL in NASL or use openssl/gnutls and export useful
> >f()
> * ssl_ciphers - SSL implementation missing, basic SSLv2 implementation
> in ssl_funcs.inc, but for this we need SSLv2 and SSLv3 implementation.
> Should we implement SSL in NASL or use openssl/gnutls and export useful
> f() to NASL?
We should export useful information back to NASL via functions
On Monday 10 August 2009 10:51:00 Chandrashekhar B wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >* ssl_ciphers - SSL implementation missing, basic SSLv2 implementation
> >in ssl_funcs.inc, but for this we need SSLv2 and SSLv3 implementation.
> >Should we implement SSL in NASL or use openssl/gnutls and export useful
> >f()
Hello,
>* ssl_ciphers - SSL implementation missing, basic SSLv2 implementation
>in ssl_funcs.inc, but for this we need SSLv2 and SSLv3 implementation.
>Should we implement SSL in NASL or use openssl/gnutls and export useful
>f() to NASL?
I think preference should be to export useful functions fr
I just commited 3com_hub replacement to trunk. That means most old
vulnerability checks implemented in C are now implemented in NASL. As
they are old I was limited in testing them, so if you can test it more,
it would be appreciated. (I have found single 3com switch, could find
any other 3com model
