[Openvas-discuss] Wanted: Reports of specific distro versions where OpenVAS installs easily ...

bb.boogie bb.boogie at gmail.com
Mon Aug 6 22:12:30 CEST 2012


This tutorial for openvas on backtrack 5 works like a champ every time we
bring up a new pentest host, by ax0n:

http://www.h-i-r.net/2011/08/installing-openvas-on-backtrack-5.html



On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Whit Blauvelt <whit at transpect.com> wrote:

> ... and just works after taking the steps for a default installation.
>
> Background: I've so far tried OBS and Atomicorp installs on versions of
> Ubuntu and CentOS and Fedora that are reported on the OpenVAS website to be
> good, with varying degrees of brokenness, and no complete success. I've
> also
> tried BackTrack, which was far from a happy experience (avoid the USB
> install - it's worthless; as a VM it's got issues too).
>
> I'm not totally discouraged by this. OpenVAS is obviously richly featured
> and well designed in many respects. In an age of VMs, it really shouldn't
> need to run well on more than one version of one distro. I'm guessing that
> there's at least one distro version of which that's true, where a straight
> forward installation, either from packages or building from source, will
> result in an OpenVAS VM that can just be used, doing a pretty good first
> approximation of a thorough and informative scan.
>
> Now, I know VMs are available, but for ESXi and VirtualBox, not KVM. And in
> my corner of the world KVM is viewed as both superior and the standard (by
> those not preferring Xen anyway). This isn't the place to argue that. It's
> just that setting up a unique VM host to handle a single VM would be
> overkill.
>
> So I'd most welcome any first-hand reports from those who've found the
> winning combination of distro and OpenVAS installation method saying
>
> 1. Distro and version used
> 2. Installation method used (packages or source)
> 3. Recipe followed (if any)
> 4. Special steps taken beyond recipe (if any)
>
> I know I can just keep plugging away trying likely combinations. Except
> I've
> done enough of that already to project that could take many more hours of
> work than just asking.
>
> Alternately, it looks like the failure of the Atomicorp package/script
> install on Fedora 15 is just one of configuration at some level. It doesn't
> segfault like the Atomicorp install on CentOS 6.3, and runs much faster,
> even if it still is quite blind to the open ports in the range it's pointed
> towards. Perhaps you've done a similar installation and then found what
> Atommicorp got wrong (not to slight their large contribution, just to hone
> it), and have a correction to suggest?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Whit
> _______________________________________________
> Openvas-discuss mailing list
> Openvas-discuss at wald.intevation.org
> http://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wald.intevation.org/pipermail/openvas-discuss/attachments/20120806/5a99654a/attachment.html>


More information about the Openvas-discuss mailing list