[Openvas-discuss] OpenVAS Vmware appliance

[Patrick Hornung]

I can't imagine everyone is having the SIGSEGV error, right?  Are there
tests I should be avoiding?

I've rebuilt my entire test system again using Fedora 9 and the unofficial
repository listed in the instructions.  I can't seem to run a single test on
a single host without a SIGSEGV appearing at the end of the openvas log.  If
it matters, running a test with no port scanner and no plugins completes
without the error (although it's a rather useless test).

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Patrick Hornung <phornung at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > Also, I created an OpenVAS server on a very bare install of fedora 9 in
>>> > vmware, but my scans only seem to do port scans and it never makes it
>>> to the
>>> > vulnerability scan part.  Is there something obvious that I'm missing?
>>>
>>> maybe you have configured openvasd with "nasl-no-signature-checks=no"
>>> but not configured signatures and/or not configured the OpenVAS NVT feed?
>>>
>>>
>> I was using everything as it came from the rpm available, but I'll
>> certainly check this out.
>>
>> Thanks for the tips.  My timeline for a release of the VM is early
>> September, so I'll definitely keep you informed on how it's going.
>>
>>
> I have some more information on the problem I'm having, it seems that I'm
> getting SIGSEGV errors in my openvasd log.  Here's an example of a scan of 4
> hosts on my local network.  I'm running the server with the following
> command: OpenVAS-Client -T html_graph localhost 1241 test test /root/file
> test3
> I'm running the command line client from the server, the server runs the
> command on port 1241, my username and password are both 'test' while I
> troubleshoot, the file /root/file contains these hosts, and test3 is the
> directory I'm writing the results to.
>
> As a test, I've rebuilt everything on debian now using subversion this time
> for everything but the client, which I compiled from 1.0.4 using the
> --disable-gtk as referenced in a prior issue.  Based on that, it seems I'm
> making the same mistake again...
>
> Is there anything else I can do to troubleshoot this?
>
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:10 2008][2604] user test starts a new scan. Target(s) :
> 10.0.0.109,10.0.0.110,10.0.0.189,10.0.0.218, with max_hosts = 5 and
> max_checks = 4
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:10 2008][2604] user test : testing 10.0.0.109 (
> 10.0.0.109) [2605]
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:11 2008][2604] user test : testing 10.0.0.110 (
> 10.0.0.110) [2606]
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:11 2008][2604] user test : testing 10.0.0.189 (
> 10.0.0.189) [2607]
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:11 2008][2604] user test : testing 10.0.0.218 (
> 10.0.0.218) [2608]
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:11 2008][2527] connection from 10.0.0.109
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:17 2008][2527] connection from 10.0.0.109
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:17 2008][2605] SIGSEGV occured !
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:17 2008][2527] connection from 10.0.0.109
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:18 2008][2608] SIGSEGV occured !
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:18 2008][2606] SIGSEGV occured !
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:36 2008][2607] SIGSEGV occured !
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:36 2008][2604] user test : test complete
> [Fri Aug  8 16:49:36 2008][2604] SIGSEGV occured !
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wald.intevation.org/pipermail/openvas-discuss/attachments/20080815/c1ceb009/attachment.html