Hello Jan, *** Jan-Oliver Wagner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 24 August 2009 13:34:45 Michael Meyer wrote: > > *** Jan-Oliver Wagner <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would prefer the use of 'report_verbosity' for such NVTs. So the > > user can then make the decision himself whether he wants to see such > > Informations or not. Im using 'report_verbosity' in all of my "Service > > Detection' NVTs. If 'report_verbosity' is set to 'Quiet' these NVTs > > will not report about found Software. Only security related stuff is > > reported in this case. > > I don't think the "report_verbosity" feature is the way to go. > The drawback of this concept is that you only have one flag > for all NVTs. If you like to have details from NVT A, but only rough > information from NVT B, this might not work in some cases.
Hmm...do we realy need more options than 'report' and 'not report'? Which are necessary too? Maybe i missed something... > I guess that the Nessus developers introduced "report_verbosity" > to circumvent the lack of a log and debug level. > But OpenVAS has a log and debug level. Who reads logs? IMHO, most people will only see what the Client shows. > > I dont't like to hide informations collected by OpenVAS unless the > > user has configured to hide them. > > Agreed. But we need a approach that can work more fine-grained. > It is IMHO better to get down the collection of OS to log and > have other NVTs take care of systematic reporting about OS > from the given KB entries. > This way we serve both needs, information on OS for other > NVTs and verbosity. Again: Who reads logfiles? ;-) Micha _______________________________________________ Openvas-plugins mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-plugins
