-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
vuls discover CIDR #1540
Comments
@fabianhjr For example, the server on 10.x.1.1 is active. Does this always reproduce in your environment? |
Yes, vuls discovered servers with 10.x.1.0/24 but not with 10.x.0.0/21 There are no servers on 10.x.0.0/24 and the first one is on 10.x.1.0/24; I am unfamiliar with the codebase to be sure if some laziness code would stop discovery upon an empty /24. |
Was able to reproduce again today:
vs
|
What did you do? (required. The issue will be closed when not provided.)
Want to auto-discover (generate a lot of configs) regarding servers on
10.x.1._
,10.x.2._
,10.x.3._
, ... (10.x.1.0/24
,10.x.2.0/24
, ...) so attempted10.x.0.0/21
which should cover10.x.0.1
-10.x.7.254
(enough for my use case)However:
Does result in servers being discovered and should have been part of the auto-discovery for the bigger network/smaller mask.
What did you expect to happen?
Autodiscovery of a subset of a net being part of autodiscovery of a bigger net
What happened instead?
Please re-run the command using
-debug
and provide the output below.Steps to reproduce the behaviour:
Attempt a partial CIDR such as /21 on a 10.0.0.0/8 local network
Go version (
go version
): go version go1.18.6 linux/amd64Go environment (
go env
):commit eb87d5d (HEAD -> master, tag: v0.20.5, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
N/A
vuls discover
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: