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

Feature request: Passive scanning during fuzzing #2528

Closed
kurobeats opened this issue Jun 2, 2016 · 3 comments · Fixed by #4318
Closed

Feature request: Passive scanning during fuzzing #2528

kurobeats opened this issue Jun 2, 2016 · 3 comments · Fixed by #4318
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@kurobeats
Copy link
Contributor

kurobeats commented Jun 2, 2016

Just a couple:

  1. Option to apply passive scanner rules to fuzzing activities.
  2. Saving all session files into a zip archive (or any other format like 7z) to keep files consolidated and decrease storage size.
@kingthorin kingthorin changed the title feature requests Feature requests: Passive scanning during fuzzing, save session in compressed archive Jun 3, 2016
@kingthorin
Copy link
Member

kingthorin commented Jun 3, 2016

Note: item 2 is a duplicate of #373

@kingthorin kingthorin self-assigned this Jan 24, 2018
@kingthorin
Copy link
Member

Changing title, removing second part since it's a duplicate.

@kingthorin kingthorin changed the title Feature requests: Passive scanning during fuzzing, save session in compressed archive Feature requests: Passive scanning during fuzzing Jan 24, 2018
@thc202 thc202 changed the title Feature requests: Passive scanning during fuzzing Feature request: Passive scanning during fuzzing Jan 24, 2018
kingthorin added a commit to kingthorin/zaproxy that referenced this issue Jan 28, 2018
Changes to facilitate addons "opting-in" their HistoryTypes for passive
scanning. For example: zaproxy#2528

Also see `HistoryReference`, eg: `public static final int TYPE_FUZZER =
8;`
kingthorin added a commit to kingthorin/zaproxy that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2018
Changes to facilitate addons "opting-in" their HistoryTypes for passive
scanning. For example: zaproxy#2528

Also see `HistoryReference`, eg: `public static final int TYPE_FUZZER =
8;`
kingthorin added a commit to kingthorin/zaproxy that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2018
Changes to facilitate addons "opting-in" their HistoryTypes for passive
scanning. For example: zaproxy#2528

Also see `HistoryReference`, eg: `public static final int TYPE_FUZZER =
8;`
kingthorin added a commit to kingthorin/zaproxy that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2018
Changes to facilitate addons "opting-in" their HistoryTypes for passive
scanning. For example: zaproxy#2528

Also see `HistoryReference`, eg: `public static final int TYPE_FUZZER =
8;`
kingthorin added a commit to kingthorin/zaproxy that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2018
Changes to facilitate addons "opting-in" their HistoryTypes for passive
scanning. For example: zaproxy#2528

Also see `HistoryReference`, eg: `public static final int TYPE_FUZZER =
8;`
kingthorin added a commit to kingthorin/zaproxy that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2018
Changes to facilitate addons "opting-in" their HistoryTypes for passive
scanning. For example: zaproxy#2528

Also see `HistoryReference`, eg: `public static final int TYPE_FUZZER =
8;`
kingthorin added a commit to kingthorin/zaproxy that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2018
Changes to facilitate addons "opting-in" their HistoryTypes for passive
scanning. For example: zaproxy#2528

Also see `HistoryReference`, eg: `public static final int TYPE_FUZZER =
8;`
kingthorin added a commit to kingthorin/zaproxy that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2018
Changes to facilitate addons "opting-in" their HistoryTypes for passive
scanning. 
Leverages that functionality to fix zaproxy#2528

Also see `HistoryReference`, eg: `public static final int TYPE_FUZZER =
8;`
@thc202 thc202 added this to the 2.8.0 milestone Feb 27, 2018
@lock
Copy link

lock bot commented Feb 1, 2020

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@lock lock bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 1, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants