We also fall back on prying Framework if a module isn't active.
This fixes the following bad behavior:
msf5 > pry
[*] exec: pry
And then your input gets stolen.
Msf::Exploit::CheckCode::Vulnerable requires the module to be
explicit, as in actually triggering the bug and get a vulnerable
response, therefore it should be appropriate to use report_vuln
to report it.
Other vuln check codes (such as Appears, or Detected, etc) will
not call report_vuln, because it's not explicit enough.
While it makes lots of sense to bring check to all modules, of course
some modules will not be able to actually use it. Namely modules like
nop and payload modules. If you're feeling creative, you could probably
come up with semantically similar checks for those, too.
[#36737359]
The merging of reload_module and the various load_module methods
resulted in the module loading from disk, but because the Hash entry in
the module manager was not deleted before on_module_load was called, the
newly reloaded module was logged as an ambiguous module name instead of
a reload. In order to report the reload errors correctly, I determined
that module_load_error_by_reference_name should really be
module_load_error_by_path. I eliminated faild in favor of this new name
since failed was just calling the attribute and the attribute's name is
clearer about the format of the data.
Tested by run rexploit and then exiting over and over with
ms08_067_netapi. When I messed up the file so it couldn't load, by
adding `inclde Exploit` (note mispelling of `include`), it reported the
error to msfconsole. When I removed the bad line and added a puts
"RELOADING <n>", where I kept incrementing n and saving the file, the
new number appeared during each rexploit.
Adam Cammack