Re: families

Hi,

I would favor arranging the families by "how the plugin works". For example:

service_detection
banner_check
registry_check
http_file_existence
cross_site_scripting

This would result in a fair few more families than we currently have.

Paul


Michel Arboi wrote:

>I know that this subject has been debated for a long time and that we
>could not reach a compromise.
>MHO, the current family sets sucks, mostly because it mixes several
>things:
>- effects, like "denial of service" or "gain root"
>- target protocols, like "finger" or "RPC",
>- target OS, like "windows"
>- including the infamous "general" and "misc."
>
>This kind of mixing is hard to avoid, but I suggest that we choose a
>main "classification" and try to minimize the exceptions.
>I think (but you are allowed to disagree :) that targets (protocols
>and OS) are the best classification. 
>Effects should be avoid, except "Denial of servce" maybe, although it
>could better be handler by a more subtle "safe_checks" (instead of a
>simple flag, we could have "all", all but DoS", "non intrusive /
>safe_checks")
>
>Things like "service identifications" could be in a special family,
>because we already have many of them and I plan to split find_services
>in small pieces.
>
>Comments?
>
>  
>

-- 
Paul Johnston
Internet Security Specialist
Westpoint Limited
Albion Wharf, 19 Albion Street,
Manchester, M1 5LN
England
Tel: +44 (0)161 237 1028
Fax: +44 (0)161 237 1031
email: [email protected]
web: www.westpoint.ltd.uk


_______________________________________________
Nessus-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus-devel