>In the past, plugins "colliding" have occured very rarely. If we have a >Tenable plugin in CVS while someone else develops a GPL plugin, the GPL >plugin won't make it. There won't be redundant plugins.
So what I am wondering is that in the case of the important new critical vuln that everyone is anxious to check their systems for, that in this case, one might have to wait a week to get access to the Tenable plugin.
Yes. You can buy a subscription if you are the kind of network who has too many hosts to keep track of to manually determine if a vulnerability is there, though.
This would be if the Tenable plugin were submitted before the GPL plugin
and they were redundant. I would presume if the GPL plugin were submitted
first that it would make it in and it would be immediately available?
Provided the test works, of course. However, if there's a new MS advisory tomorrow and that I receive a plugin written as quickly as possible which basically does not do the job (but with an author who assumes that the plugin will get fixed by the community), then I'll probably reject it except if a trivial fix can make it work.
So if a Tenable plugin was developed, tested, and accepted for a critical vulnerability before a GPL one, this policy could leave the GPL side with never having a plugin available to check for that vuln. At bare minimum you'd have to sign up for the licensed feed to be able to check for that vuln.
Also there is a mention that a user is required to accept the Tenable license for access to the licensed feed. Where is this license? I could not locate it for reading and understanding.
_______________________________________________ Nessus mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
