RE: [Plugins-writers] Nmap.nasl

herman@private

Thank you for the response,

I did not play with the timing options (-T) as that would influence other
settings as well (parallel scanning, time between scans and host timeouts).
I agree that adding more nmap preferences are probaly not the most elegant
way of adressing this issue. (What if the next release has even more or less
settings ?)

I would suggest having one, generic input box where the user can enter their
nmap parameters (Example: -n -P0 --min_parallelism 100 --max_scan_delay 0)
If the user does not enter additional parameters, default ones are assigned
(Example: -n -P0)

What do you think?

Regards,

Herman

-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Arboi [mailto:mikhail@private] 
Sent: 14 June 2005 10:46 AM
To: Herman Young
Cc: plugins-writers@private
Subject: Re: [Plugins-writers] Nmap.nasl

On Mon May 30 2005 at 13:58, Herman Young wrote:

> Recent changes to nmap affects the time it takes to port scan a 
> firewalled host. This will in turn affect Nessus scans when nmap.nasl is
used.

What about removing most of the code, and have nmap.nasl just import a file?
I sometimes think this is the best option. 

> Reference: http://seclists.org/lists/nmap-dev/2004/Oct-Dec/0143.html 
> (Nmap
> Development: nmap-3.7x MUCH slower than nmap-3.55 against firewalled 
> hosts)

nessus_tcp_scanner does not suffer from this, AFAIK.

> The workaround for this issue is to pass additional parameters to nmap 
> namely (--max_scan_delay 0).

According to the manual page, the timing (-T) options changed this
parameter. Did you play with them?

>   script_add_preference(name: "Maximum wait between probes (ms)", 
> value: "",
> type: "entry");

There are already too many preferences. I'd rather not add one.
Maybe this could be automatically added when we are not in "safe checks"...

_______________________________________________
Plugins-writers mailing list
Plugins-writers@private
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/plugins-writers