Hartmut Goebel wrote: > Am 28.04.2010 18:38, schrieb Vlatko Kosturjak: > >> Few of them: >> >> - Use local security checks if possible. > > Unfortunately not practicable in our case :-(. (Esp. since the > requirements for local checks are not well documented.)
Requirements are that the scanner has permissions to a shell account on the platform being audited, and that this account has access to the commands uname cat dpkg > >> - Turn off "Safe checks". Did not check the particular NASL(s) you >> mention. but if there's correct implementation, safe check would check >> for vulnerability harder. With safe checks, usually it checks >> banners/versions. > > Uff, this will become hard, since I assume these are not grouped into a > family. I believe this is a single configuration setting that in most cases will apply to all tests that have a choice of making a "banner" check, vs a more thorough vulnerability check. It would apply to all scripts across all families that operate in this dual mode. Thomas _______________________________________________ Openvas-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss
