You seem to be suggesting that the two options are different. I asked the
same question a few weeks ago and was pointed to this part of the
documentation that indicates these two options are identical.

Regards,
Michael Cox

>From nessus-core/doc/WARNING.En :

 3.3. Scripts selection

With the GUI, one can
- select everything in one click,
- select "Everything but dangerous plugins".
  This choice eliminates the categories ACT_DENIAL or
  ACT_DESTRUCTIVE_ATTACK. This is redundant with the "safe checks"
  option and will probably disappear one day.
[snip]

 3.4.4. Safe checks

This option disables the dangerous script that may kill the system or
some service. Nessus then relies upon the version numbers in banners,
for example. If no clue is available, the test is simply dropped.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo van der Kooij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:21 PM
> To: 'Nessus'
> Subject: Re: Safe Checks?
> 
> 
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Andrew Blevins wrote:
> 
> > I recently ran a few scans, and made sure I had the "safe 
> checks" button
> > selected. Nessus ran the RFPoison check anyway. Does this 
> safe check button
> > override the unsafe checks if I have by default all the 
> plugins selected? Or
> > does safe checks do something else?
> > RFPoison is definitly NOT safe! :-) As I'm sure you all know.
> > I found it to work just as advertised, it blew the lid of 
> some stuff. . . . 
> > Anyway, anyone have any answers to the "safe checks" question?
> 
> The GUI tells you that safe checks refer to those test that 
> can be skipped 
> based on the information taken from banners. RFPoison does 
> NOT fall into 
> that category.
> 
> So if you allow dangerous plugins you get dangerous plugins. 
> Untill now no 
> better word has been found for the current "safe checks" to 
> express its 
> meaning more clearly.
> 
> Hugo.
> 
> -- 
> All email send to me is bound to the rules described on my homepage.
>     [EMAIL PROTECTED]          http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
>           Don't meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
>           for they are subtle and quick to anger.
> 

Reply via email to