Skip to content
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

BChecks concurrent requests? #116

Closed
Saduff opened this issue Sep 20, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

BChecks concurrent requests? #116

Saduff opened this issue Sep 20, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@Saduff
Copy link

Saduff commented Sep 20, 2023

Should requests initiated by BChecks run concurrently based on the scan's resource pool configuration? If they should, it's not what I'm observing.

Using the default resource pool with 10 concurrent requests, I can see requests appear in the Logger one by one instead of 10 at once. Additionally, it took 178 seconds (~3 minutes) to issue 188 requests, which seems a bit too long if 10 requests were issued concurrently. I would expect it to finish in under 30 seconds in that case.

@Michelle-PortSwigger
Copy link
Contributor

Hi

Can I check a couple of details with you, please? Are you performing a crawl and audit or an audit-only? How many items are in the audit items list for the scan task? Are you scanning 1 item with multiple BChecks?

@Saduff
Copy link
Author

Saduff commented Sep 22, 2023

Hi Michelle!

I'm using the audit-only option with 1 item in the audit items list. And yes, I have multiple BChecks enabled. It seems there's no concurrency either between multiple BChecks or paths in run for each: potential_path.

@Maia-PortSwigger
Copy link
Contributor

This is expected behaviour. If you had multiple audit items, they would run in parallel, but BChecks run against each audit item are sequential, as are the paths in run for each: potential_path.

Thank you for highlighting this. We will be looking at ways to improve speed and performance in this area.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants