On Dienstag, 25. August 2009, Michael Meyer wrote:
> > > 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?
we do have a log message class in OpenVAS (in contrast to Nessus).
So, it is not as complicated as ssh'ing to the server. You just can review
the logs in your OpenVAS Client.
But it is the wrong question ;-)
"helper-nasls" IMHO should report into KB and make a log-entry.
"reporting nasls" should use a security message to inform.
The first type of nasls is sometimes pulled into execution as
a dependency. The second is more or less explicitely selected by the user.
Best
Jan
--
Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner | ++49-541-335084-0 | http://www.greenbone.net/
Greenbone Networks GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück | AG Osnabrück, HR B
202460
Geschäftsführer: Lukas Grunwald, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
_______________________________________________
Openvas-plugins mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-plugins
