-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Scope checker NEW Module #23
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
… ports table." This reverts commit 6ce6769
Updated my fork with the upstream master
…in the hosts table.
dependencies: [] | ||
description: Compares the hosts table and removes hosts that are not found within | ||
the provided scope document. Scope should be defined within the document either | ||
by single IP or in CIDR notation (eg. 192.168.1.0/24) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not by domain? In web app land, scope is usually by domain rather than IP. Just a thought.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could do either..... I supposed network land I usually get an IP scope :). Could do two modules one for IP and one for the domain.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You don't like the idea of dynamically detecting a scope entry as IP, CIDR, or domain, then applying as needed? You're already doing it for IP and CIDR, so adding another module seems inconsistent, no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just felt like a lot of the other modules are broken up based on that at least that is how I have noticed it. Shouldn't be too hard to add in looking at the domains as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated this for reading in a domain now within the scope document.
…ll as IPs and CIDR.
…hat may not be written to standard byusing a host when labeling the CIDR.
I've added a suggestion to the framework repo here lanmaster53/recon-ng#92 (comment) on an alternative approach to this. |
No description provided.