Adding auxiliary/scanner/snmp modules docs

[Yashvendra]

Adding auxiliary/scanner/snmp/snmp_enum , auxiliary/scanner/snmp/snmp_enumusers and auxiliary/scanner/snmp/snmp_enumshares documentation.

[jrobles-r7]

Release Notes

Documentation has been added for the snmp_enum, snmp_enumusers, and snmp_enumshares auxiliary scanner modules.

[jrobles-r7]

Thanks for the contribution @Yashvendra

[h00die]

Also, there are no options listed.
https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/lib/msf/core/exploit/snmp.rb#L29
I would suggest adding COMMUNITY and VERSION. In each module description I'd also call out that SNMPv3 is NOT supported.

[h00die]

i would recommend sanitizing this value.

[h00die]

I would recommend sanitizing the network address

[h00die]

### Negear GSM7224

Even though there is only one example here, its good to have this so later others can add

[h00die]

Generally I like to document how you created the vulnerability here so that others (maybe making a lab, or verifying this module works) can replicate. Most likely: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/324263/how-to-configure-the-simple-network-management-protocol-snmp-service-i

[h00die]

### Windows ????

[h00die]

This module has 3 places where it checks: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/modules/auxiliary/scanner/snmp/snmp_enumshares.rb#L25
It would be good to put those in the docs and explain what they map to

[h00die]

I would mention it only works against Windows hosts.

[h00die]

I would mention this works on Windows and Sun (Solaris? @bcoles do you know if sysDescr.0 on modern solaris still says "Sun"? This module may need updating..)

[h00die]

There are 2 values, I would call them out and what they map to: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/modules/auxiliary/scanner/snmp/snmp_enumusers.rb#L36

[h00die]

I would call out the items which are pulled by this module in a list. IE:

1. 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.5.0 sysName

[Yashvendra]

Was busy with something else, wiill do the necessary changes asap.

[h00die]

no worries! I haven't had time yet to look at the other submissions anyways.

[Yashvendra]

I wondered why it just got merged without the review. Will do the necessary changes @h00die

[h00die]

Metasploit is a very large project filled with r7 employees (like @jrobles-r7 ), and volunteers (like myself). We all have our specialties and areas we're most familiar with, but everyone likes to help out when and wherever possible. Sometimes I merge things @bcoles points out later were not done well (or more pythonic than ruby-ic), sometimes someone merges docs that I want a few edits to. It happens, and it's all good!

One of the many reasons could be that often volunteers submit things, and don't ever come back to make edits and get things up to par. When the PR in question is exclusively new docs, which won't break the framework and didn't previously exist, it's arguably better to have something than nothing. I'm also a stickler when it comes to docs. Originally docs were just to show running the module, which you've done (and therefore this PR is ok to merge).

I tend to prefer more involved docs which show setup of the vuln, ways to verify with other tools, and ways to go from vuln id to exploitation if possible. Mainly, I do this because I've set up vuln labs before and having all these docs in an easy to find place makes a HUGE difference. Also its a good place to store my own pentesting notes (when applicable) so others can benefit. For example, https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/documentation/modules/auxiliary/scanner/x11/open_x11.md#social-engineering is from my personal pentesting notes, but I think adds a lot to the docs. Is it over the top and unnecessary? yes. Is it VERY time consuming to come up with docs this in depth? yes. But I argue it makes a better overall product, and when the price is right, I don't think r7 is going to argue.