-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 245
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
Retry with different resolvers #708
Comments
Thanks so much for your feature request @pdelteil , we'll take a look into it! |
@pdelteil , I believe the behavior you are looking for is already there via -retry int number of dns attempts to make (must be at least 1) (default 2) It seems to work that way from my read onf the retryabledns code. N would be the retry count. Every retry I believe goes to a new resolver from the list you gave it. |
Not the same.
As far as I know, a retry only occurs when the response from the request is
empty.
Not when getting a SERVFAIL:
https://github.com/projectdiscovery/retryabledns/blob/main/client.go#L187
…On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 09:01, calab33p ***@***.***> wrote:
@pdelteil <https://github.com/pdelteil> , I believe the behavior you are
looking for is already there via
-retry int number of dns attempts to make (must be at least 1) (default 2)
It seems to work that way from my read onf the retryabledns code. N would
be the retry count. Every retry I believe goes to a new resolver from the
list you gave it.
CC @GeorginaReeder <https://github.com/GeorginaReeder>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#708 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2OS72SFSEYPL4U2UK5K7TZUB3MVAVCNFSM6AAAAABLPYQX2KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRRGM2TQNJVGQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Yeah, it's a little confusing how retryable has both the Do() and QueryMultiple() functions, but I don't believe the code you are referencing will run. Looks like dnsx is using QueryMultiple() instead and that code retries if Rcode isn't NOERROR: https://github.com/projectdiscovery/retryabledns/blob/main/client.go#L417 Maybe give it a try @pdelteil |
Also note https://github.com/projectdiscovery/retryabledns/blob/main/client.go#L327 where the next resolver is chosen. Personally, given the way the code is written, I believe the optimal number for retries is a multiple of the number of resolvers configured. So, if you have 50 resolvers, then 50 or 100 or .... |
You're making comments based on your idea of the code but not from testing.
I created this issue for the repo owner to do the heavy lifting regarding the functionality.
What you said is not what I need from this tool.
…On Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 01:07 calab33p ***@***.***> wrote:
Also note
https://github.com/projectdiscovery/retryabledns/blob/main/client.go#L327
where the next resolver is chosen. Personally, given the way the code is
written, I believe the optimal number for retries is a multiple of the
number of resolvers configured. So, if you have 50 resolvers, then 50 or
100 or ....
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#708 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2OS76FRHWQNCRUKZOX4G3ZUFMSPAVCNFSM6AAAAABLPYQX2KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRSG44DSNBZGY>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Please describe your feature request:
Often times while scanning domains you will get many false positives or REFUSED states. It would be useful to define a retry flag that retries with N resolvers. I'm assuming the current retry flag uses the same resolver every time.
Describe the use case of this feature:
Let's say we are looking for resolving domains (NOERROR status code), due to resolvers being blocked or malfunctioning (or rate limited?) the result might be REFUSED. I would like then to have this conditions matched:
Show a warning if N is greater than the resolvers defined in the -r parameter.
Thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: