feat: detect potential incremental routes and bruteforce them#388
Draft
feat: detect potential incremental routes and bruteforce them#388
Conversation
156ef9a to
b692e2b
Compare
b692e2b to
dc4d6c9
Compare
Owner
Author
|
In the end, implementing this feature in a safe and correct way introduces much more complexity than I initially anticipated. No longer sure it's worth the maintenance/cognitive complexity cost to include it. Might keep this one on hold unless I see more interest for it. Especially given that it could be replaced by just writing a script to generate a dictionary with incremental channel IDs for the routes 🤔 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Goal of this PR
Fixes #263
Adds support for detecting “incrementable” RTSP routes (e.g., ChannelID patterns) and automatically brute-forcing sequential variants to discover additional streams on the same target.
Changes
How did I test it?
Unit test coverage was added, but I can't do a proper end to end test myself: