On Monday, 2. January 2012, Henri Doreau wrote:
> 2012/1/2 Jan-Oliver Wagner <[email protected]>:
> > However, in some cases it might be a information leak problem.
> >
> > So, I wonder whether we should split this functionality into two NVTs:
> > - one that simply retrieves the traceroute information and stores it
> > in the host details.
> > - one that reads the host details and sends a security note if it looks
> > reasonable to do so (what are the hints for information leaks?)
> > Ideally this NVT should already define a CVSS which explains the
> > the severity with its base vector.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> could you elaborate on situations where reporting the detailed
> traceroute information would be a problem?
not reporting is the problem. The current traceroute NVT thinks it is
a security threat if some information are available via traceroute.
> We should pay attention to
> the fact that host details end up in the final reports just like the
> security messages.
this is not the actual problem.
The actual question is: why and what type of threat is present by traceroute
information?
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
