Bug#539698: document removal of nessus, recommend switch to OpenVAS
retitle 539698 [SQUEEZE] document removal of nessus, recommend switch to OpenVAS
Thanks for your comments.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 08:31:31PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote:
> On 21-08-2009 17:33, Nicolas François wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 11:13:34PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote:
> >> Javier reported on debian-security the removal of Nessus and recommended
> >> interested users to switch to OpenVAS. Cyril asked if it should be mentioned in
> >> the release-notes and I just submit this bug report. :-)
> >> 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2009/08/msg00005.html
> > Should we recommend this when user upgrade from Etch to Lenny (and inform
> > then during Lenny -> Squeeze), or should we just inform users during Lenny
> > -> Squeeze?
> Nessus is still available on all Debian "distros", I don't
> think it is worth to be added to Etch's RN, but certainly it deserves
> a not on Squeezes' RN.
> But your question is quite interesting, I don't really know
> what happened in the past regarding RN when such changes happened and
> could become an useful piece of information, even for migrations
> oldstable -> stable.
I was fearing that Lenny's nessus was useless and gave a misleading sense
Re-reading the thread makes me think that it is not the case (but will
probably be the case in Squeeze).
> > Also, reading the thread, we may wait a bit until we are sure nobody
> > insist in continuing the maintenance of nessus.
> Of course, this is one of the problems related to Release Notes,
> it doesn't really matter *right* *now* what's the outcome of the
> discussion, in 8 to 16 months, Nessus may be back or may be totally
> dead. :)
I'm just tagging the bug for SQUEEZE, and we will see later.
> PS: I was unsure if I should copy you or not, so I cc:ed, let me know
> if you prefer I remove it next time.
I'm receiving RN's bugs, and I do not care about duplicate emails;)