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] Multi port support #2355

Open
rwils83 opened this issue Apr 10, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

[Feature request] Multi port support #2355

rwils83 opened this issue Apr 10, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@rwils83
Copy link

rwils83 commented Apr 10, 2023

Which version are you referring to
3.0.x or 3.1dev? We might close this right away otherwise.

testssl.sh 3.2rc2 from https://testssl.sh/dev/

Please check this repo whether this is a known feature request
If in doubt check the git log and/or check whether you run the latest version from the git repo. Maybe this was solved already?

There was a request for multi port support referenced in #1388, but a completely different use case and this issue was closed.

Describe your feature request (if it's a technical feature)

I would like to use the tool on multiple ports for a host. For example, if host 192.168.0.2 has SSL enabled on 443, 3389, 8443, instead of running three scans with https://192.168.0.2, https://192.168.0.2:3389, https://192.168.0.2:8443, it would be awesome if I could do something like --ports=443,3389,8443.

If your feature request otherwise is related to a usage problem, please describe it
A clear and concise description of what the problem is. Example: I'm always frustrated when [...]

Not a usage problem, it would just be a nice feature to have

Describe the solution you'd like
A clear and concise description of what you want to happen instead.

As mentioned above, it would be awesome if a command argument such as --ports= allowed for the tool to run against multiple ports after SSL/TLS is discovered on the port using nmap or vuln scanners, I understand this tool was not meant for port discovery.

@drwetter
Copy link
Owner

Okay, thx.

Except DNS lookups a complete run has to be performed. It might not be hard to implement as the easiest way to go implement it is using a loop or a file as input -- same as on the cmd line.

It's really a commodity feature only and has not a high prio on my list. Maybe somebody jumps in..

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants