This tutorial for openvas on backtrack 5 works like a champ every time we bring up a new pentest host, by ax0n:
http://www.h-i-r.net/2011/08/installing-openvas-on-backtrack-5.html On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Whit Blauvelt <[email protected]> wrote: > ... and just works after taking the steps for a default installation. > > Background: I've so far tried OBS and Atomicorp installs on versions of > Ubuntu and CentOS and Fedora that are reported on the OpenVAS website to be > good, with varying degrees of brokenness, and no complete success. I've > also > tried BackTrack, which was far from a happy experience (avoid the USB > install - it's worthless; as a VM it's got issues too). > > I'm not totally discouraged by this. OpenVAS is obviously richly featured > and well designed in many respects. In an age of VMs, it really shouldn't > need to run well on more than one version of one distro. I'm guessing that > there's at least one distro version of which that's true, where a straight > forward installation, either from packages or building from source, will > result in an OpenVAS VM that can just be used, doing a pretty good first > approximation of a thorough and informative scan. > > Now, I know VMs are available, but for ESXi and VirtualBox, not KVM. And in > my corner of the world KVM is viewed as both superior and the standard (by > those not preferring Xen anyway). This isn't the place to argue that. It's > just that setting up a unique VM host to handle a single VM would be > overkill. > > So I'd most welcome any first-hand reports from those who've found the > winning combination of distro and OpenVAS installation method saying > > 1. Distro and version used > 2. Installation method used (packages or source) > 3. Recipe followed (if any) > 4. Special steps taken beyond recipe (if any) > > I know I can just keep plugging away trying likely combinations. Except > I've > done enough of that already to project that could take many more hours of > work than just asking. > > Alternately, it looks like the failure of the Atomicorp package/script > install on Fedora 15 is just one of configuration at some level. It doesn't > segfault like the Atomicorp install on CentOS 6.3, and runs much faster, > even if it still is quite blind to the open ports in the range it's pointed > towards. Perhaps you've done a similar installation and then found what > Atommicorp got wrong (not to slight their large contribution, just to hone > it), and have a correction to suggest? > > Thanks, > > Whit > _______________________________________________ > Openvas-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Openvas-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss
