Marc, The behavior is like, if multiple HTTP ports are available, the code will be called multiple times. I think the report is getting overwritten when it calls for 8443.
We are debugging to make it more port specific. Thanks, Chandra. -----Original Message----- From: Marc Rennhard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:11 PM To: Chandrashekhar B; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Openvas-discuss] Minor differences in subsequent scans Hi Chandra Indeed, not including port 8443 in the list shows both the Nikto scan and the robots.txt issue under "Security Note" of port 80. Is there an explanaion for this? Thanks, Marc Chandrashekhar B wrote: > Hello Marc, > > Just to help us understand the problem better, can you remove 8443 from the > second list and let me know if the report is proper? > > Thanks, > Chandra. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marc > Rennhard > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 2:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Openvas-discuss] Minor differences in subsequent scans > > Dear list > > I'm currently evaluating Openvas, primarily as a Nessus replacement. I'm > working unde Linux using the latest versions for client, server and plugins. > > The server I test runs several services (ssh, smtp, http, pop3s, imaps > and another http service on port 8443). I always use all plugins and > haven't changed the default plugin settings. Now consider the following: > > In one scan, I only specify port 80 in the port scan list (I leave the > "Consider unscanned ports as closed" checkbox unchecked); in the next > scan I specify all open ports (22,25,80.993,995,8443). Several issues > are reported with respect to port 80 in bot cases, but there are two > differences in the sense that two additional issues are listed when I > specify only port 80: > > - Under Security Warning, I get additionally the output of the > robots.txt plugin (1.3.6.1.4.1.25623.1.0.10302) > > - Under Security Notes, I get additionally the output of the Nikto > plugin (1.3.6.1.4.1.25623.1.0.14260) > > Does anyone has an idea, why these two issues are reported in the first > but not in the second scan? And yes, I could reproduce this several times. > > Thanks for any help, > Marc > > _______________________________________________ > Openvas-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss _______________________________________________ Openvas-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss
