You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When developing Tsunami scanner plugins/detectors I came across an issue with insecure SSL certificates. Despite configuring an http client to trust all certificates with:
The detector still fails with javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException exception when
it comes across a web server with an insecure certificate. So this option does not seem to be working as expected.
To get around this issue I had to run Tsunami scanner with the: --http-client-trust-all-certificate
option.
This can result in some false negative findings / missed targets if a user doesn't run the scanner with this option specifically.
Thanks
Dawid
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I got the full context after reviewing the k8s open access pull request. Yes, this is indeed a bug. To keep it simple, I will remove the option to modify setTrustAllCertificates from the client (client was never set up to support the on-the-fly modification of this option), and set setTrustAllCertificates to true by default. The option will still available at the top level, so that users can turn it off via --http-client-trust-all-certificate flag.
Hi
When developing Tsunami scanner plugins/detectors I came across an issue with insecure SSL certificates. Despite configuring an http client to trust all certificates with:
this.httpClient = checkNotNull(httpClient).modify().setTrustAllCertificates(true).build();
The detector still fails with
javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException
exception whenit comes across a web server with an insecure certificate. So this option does not seem to be working as expected.
To get around this issue I had to run Tsunami scanner with the:
--http-client-trust-all-certificate
option.
This can result in some false negative findings / missed targets if a user doesn't run the scanner with this option specifically.
Thanks
Dawid
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: