-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # 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: