Skip to content
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

Fix modules broken by @wchen-r7 's 4275a65407389f2d04d4cf72e788d826ee… #7069

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 6, 2016

Conversation

cnotin
Copy link
Contributor

@cnotin cnotin commented Jul 5, 2016

Fix modules broken by @wchen-r7's 4275a65 commit (PR #5917).
I think that's the best way to do it, let me know (especially @wchen-r7) if it should be done differently.

These modules call check() in the exploit() function and expected to get a CheckCode::Vulnerable, now that check() returns Appears instead of Vulnerable they always refuse to run.
I've flipped the logic, based on examples in other modules, now they refuse to run only if check() positively returns Safe.
@todb-r7
Copy link

todb-r7 commented Jul 5, 2016

Updated description to point to the apparent source PR.

@wchen-r7 wchen-r7 self-assigned this Jul 5, 2016
@wchen-r7 wchen-r7 merged commit 0f8efec into rapid7:master Jul 6, 2016
@wchen-r7
Copy link
Contributor

wchen-r7 commented Jul 6, 2016

Release Notes

Fix check conditions that are impossible to meet in certain local exploits - In #5917, multiple local exploit checks were updated to meet the development guidelines. While doing that, some of the local exploits were modified to check codes that weren't actually used, causing the modules to never actually fire. This patch makes it possible to use the modules again if exploitable.

@cnotin cnotin deleted the ClementNotin-fix-checkcode branch February 13, 2019 15:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants