Re: NSEC Enumeration script

[John Bond <john.r.bond () gmail com>]

On 15 March 2011 17:59, David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:33:11AM +0100, John Bond wrote:
> > Patrik Karlsson:
> > > In essence, I think that the following change should be performed:
> > > - return rPkt.dnssec,true, rPkt
> > > + return true, rPkt
> > >
> > > This way it's more standardized and does not return redundant information.
> >
> >  rPkt.dnssec is redundant if you are using the raw packet but if you
> > just want an answer then rPkt.dnssec could be usefull. what should the
> > library return if the query is successful but there is no dnssec?
>
> I agree with Patrik here. I don't want to waste a return value just for
> dnssec. Also, just indicating "dnssec" isn't saying much, it basically
> means "NSEC or RRSIG or DNSKEY or DS or NSEC3". Anyone who actually
> needs to use that specific information will need to dig into the packet,
> as we are doing. It's fine if dns.query in normal mode (not retPkt mode)
> doesn't return all the information.
Yes the more i thought about it the more i came to the same
conclusion.  the issue i was having is i wasn't sure what to return in
the status if you ask for dnssec but it is not available.  however dns
returns the answer with no error which is the best thing for this
library as well so all good.  And with that in mind the change seemed
pretty simple almost too simple :) also i tested your changes and they
all worked fine, cheers john

Attachment: dns-nsec-enum.nse.patch
Description:

Attachment: dns.lua.patch
Description:

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/