Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Scan despite dead host detection? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:12:53 +0200 |
On Wed Jul 27 2005 at 10:57, Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
The test usually involve test against a firewalled environment so I know dead host detection is nearly impossible to perform.
There must be an unfiltered TCP port somewhere, no?
I have been digging into the knowledgebase and disabled various tests like ping_host.nasl (10180)
I think that disabling ping_host.nasl is not OK if "auto dependencies" are on, because many plugins depends upon ping_host and it will be enabled again. Two solutions, IMHO: - disable auto dependencies & ping_host - let ping_host run, but go to pref and unselect all ping methods.
If not is there a way of running nmap first and feed the output automagically to Nessus?
Yes there is, but it will not solve your ping problem. ping_host detects more alive machine than nmap ping. -- http://arboi.da.ru/ PGP key ID : 0x0BBABA91 - 0x1320924F0BBABA91 Fingerprint: 1048 B09B EEAF 20AA F645 2E1A 1320 924F 0BBA BA91 _______________________________________________ Nessus mailing list Nessus@list.nessus.org http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Scan despite dead host detection?, Hugo van der Kooij |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Scan despite dead host detection?, Josh Zlatin-Amishav |
| Previous by Thread: | Scan despite dead host detection?, Hugo van der Kooij |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Scan despite dead host detection?, Josh Zlatin-Amishav |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |