Revisit output format for mitigation presence

[woodruffw]

We currently model the presence of mitigations as true or false, making a partially arbitrary choice when a mitigation doesn't apply (e.g. ASLR on .NET, SafeSEH on x86_64). Instead, we should model presence as true, false, or "N/A".

[woodruffw]

More generally, we should remodel the output away from:

{
  "mitigation": bool
}

to:

{
  "mitigation": {
    "present": bool | "N/A",
    "flag": "/WHATEVER",
    "description": "whatever"
  }
]

[haxmeadroom]

Yeah, I was also wanting more granularity than true or false. Might need unimplemented or other conditions besides N/A (for WinVerifyTrust for example).

[haxmeadroom]

Maybe each flag should have true/false/other, and a text field to describe the details?

[woodruffw]

Maybe each flag should have true/false/other, and a text field to describe the details?

That sounds good to me!

[haxmeadroom]

We could also put a @disconnect3d 's --info there, or maybe that makes sense for another completely new field.

[woodruffw]

New field makes sense to me -- I was thinking description or similar.

[woodruffw]

I'm going to take a stab at this now, since I'm waiting on builds 😅