On Dienstag, 22. April 2008, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
> error handling in the NASL interpreter and reporting of such errors to
> openvasd and back to the user is not ideal and it doesn't seem difficult to
> improve. Attached is a brief analysis and some suggestions for improvements.
> What do you think?
IMHO, the user view is important: I want to be informed about
* scripts that failed to compile and thus are not considered any further.
Perhaps as a summary of all sciptnames with their OIDs and reason
reported in a security_warning.
* scripts that one way or another decided to exit() without any
security_error, security_warning or security_hint.
Perhaps also in form of a summary.
Ideally I'd like to have such reports under a new groups
such as "scan_error", "scan_warning" and, for explicit
debug purposes, "scan_debug".
Maybe we should start with compile failures.
Lets get them somehow to the user. She should better
know which scripts were not executed at all.
>From your analysis I am not sure how the parse errors
could make it to the user.
Don't these errors occur at startup of openvasd when
there is no client connected yet?
Can you work out this case a bit, so there is a vision
for the implementation, perhaps a draft of a Change Reuqest?
Best
Jan
--
Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück
Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HR B 18998 http://www.intevation.de/
Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
_______________________________________________
Openvas-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-devel
