-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
What about this angle, because this thread has been beaten like a dead
horse.
Vulnerability scanners are akin to AV.
It is great when used PROPERLY. Any asshat can scan a computer with a
virus scanner. If it is 0day or really old, your scanner will more than
likely not detect it. Or you are using a scanner that is rubbish it may
not detect anything anyway. And if something IS detected, now what are
you going to do?
That is where experience and (self) education comes in.
Any professional worth their weight in salt should be able to walk up to
any computer at any time and be able to have an idea as to what is wrong
with it, within a short amount of time. That is with the majority of
bugs/vulnerabilities out there. This should be without the aid of tools.
The tools are nice as they will help to give you a direction to head
into. They will allow those that are not up to par, to develop some
skills to get where they need to be. They are also a benefit to those
of us that _do_ know what we are doing. Because we all have days that
we are not runnign 100%. One of those scanners can catch something that
you may have missed.
Rob.
Adriel T. Desautels wrote:
> Michael,
> Let me clear it up for you. Automated tools, like vulnerability
> scanners, are great when used properly and responsibly. They save time
> and energy by finding low hanging fruit. Thats where it ends.
>
> Many vendors produce deliverables that are the product (direct or
> indirect) of automated tools. Those products are not only poor quality
> but usually have no to minimal human talent involved. In my opinion
> those businesses are providing a disservice and selling their customers
> a false sense of security.
>
> What is the customer paying for anyway? Are they paying you to
> click a button and run a scan, or are they paying you for your security
> expertise? In too many cases security providers call themselves experts
> but all they do is click that scan button. The unfortunate truth is
> that this has become the norm and their customers don't even know it.
> The fraudulent security providers are in fact taking advantage of their
> customers. That's my beef.
>
> And so what if the customer requests that service? The provider is
> supposed to be the expert. Educate the customer about what real security
> testing is. Don't be a vulture and take their money because its easy,
> actually help them protect their assets.
>
> Anyone that knows a thing or two should know why automated scanners
> just don't cut it. Its like I said before, automated vulnerability
> scanners can not protect you from hackers. If you think that they can,
> then you just don't know what you are doing. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2009, at 10:04 PM, Michael Condon wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what the beef is here. All automated tools only get you
>> only as far as their inherent limitations. And most seem to come to
>> different conclusions.
>> A skilled manual pen tester can do some/all/maybe more than an
>> automated tool, but will probably wrap his/her methodology - into
>> their own automated tool.
>> I agree with NeZa, it's best to act further based on the results of an
>> automated tool - whether it's your own or someone else's. But no
>> matter how far you go, you're still always one move ahead or behind a
>> moving target.
>> It's software. I don't like the laws of probability or the effects of
>> gravity and weather either.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Adriel T. Desautels" <ad_lists_at_netragard.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:13 PM
>> To: "NeZa" <danuxx_at_gmail.com>
>> Cc: "ArcSighter Elite" <arcsighter_at_gmail.com>; <me_at_abegetchell.com>;
>> "pen-test list" <pen-test_at_securityfocus.com>; "Security Basics"
>> <security-basics_at_securityfocus.com>
>> Subject: Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work
>>
>>> NeZa,
>>> Its possible to assess the security of an application without
>>> automation while being much more through than an automated tool. Its
>>> also very time consuming and expensive though.
>>> On Jan 9, 2009, at 2:15 PM, NeZa wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will based my comments on Web Application Vulnerability Scanners....
>>>>
>>>> The main thing is related to Automated and Manual (which i called
>>>> Educated) Testing.
>>>>
>>>> Even if you have a talented team of hackers you need to use some
>>>> Automated effort, because, lets suppose you have some good XSS, XSRF,
>>>> SQL attack strings to inject but you can not do it manually against
>>>> hundreds or thousands of GET/POST right?
>>>> You need to automate, so definitely in order to have the best results
>>>> you need to use a combination between Vulnerability Scanner (automated
>>>> effort) and telented hackers (educated testing).
>>>>
>>>> "Educated Testing starts when Automated Scanning finish" because there
>>>> are things a machine can not see.
>>>>
>>>> My 2 cents.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:03 PM, ArcSighter Elite <arcsighter_at_gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
> Abe Getchell wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Adriel,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The title and opening paragraph of your blog post are quite
>>>>>>> misleading and
>>>>>>> rather reckless. There is definitely a false sense of security
>>>>>>> that is sold
>>>>>>> to some organizations by the developers of vulnerability scanning
>>>>>>> tools, but
>>>>>>> that is the fault of the purchasing organization (due to a lack of
>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>> and unqualified individuals making decisions), not those companies
>>>>>>> pushing
>>>>>>> their product. It's a consumer problem, not a technology or
>>>>>>> process problem,
>>>>>>> which you seem to describe it as in the bulk of your blog post.
>>>>>>> Vulnerability scanning tools can have a wonderfully awesome impact
>>>>>>> on your
>>>>>>> security posture if they're used in a manner in which they function
>>>>>>> adequately; as a compliance tool. While I understand the sales
>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>> your blog post, what your customers (and any other organization
>>>>>>> investigating this type of technology) should understand is that
>>>>>>> they should
>>>>>>> not be "using a team of talented hackers for security testing
>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>> relying on automated vulnerability scanners", but rather "using a
>>>>>>> team of
>>>>>>> talented hackers AND vulnerability scanners for security testing and
>>>>>>> compliance".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See ya,
>>>>>>> Abe
>>>>>>>
>
> I agree.
> IMHO, a pen-testers team is a must-use for any penetration testing
> scenario; they should be experienced people and the matter if they
> use
> vuln scanners or not, is of their choice.
> I see over and over (even in this list) post such as:
> "I'm doing a penetration test against a company. After running
> Acunetix,
> it show reports of x sql injection vulnerabilities. How can I probe
> my
> customer this is a high risk vuln? (...)"
> What company could trust their security to such case?
> I think no-one with a little of common sense.
> Vuln scanners are useful, but as I said, as with most tools, the
> human
> knowledge is the real factor. When you combine both they you get
> pen-test.
>
> Honestly.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Regalado aka NeZa
>>>> Hacker Wanna Be from Nezahualcoyotl
>>>>
>>>> www.macula-group.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adriel T. Desautels
>>> ad_lists_at_netragard.com
>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subscribe to our blog
>>> http://snosoft.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date:
>>> 1/10/2009 6:01 PM
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.6/1888 - Release Date:
>> 1/12/2009 7:04 AM
> Adriel T. Desautels
> ad_lists_at_netragard.com
> --------------------------------------
> Subscribe to our blog
> http://snosoft.blogspot.com
- --
Rob
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| _ |
| ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) |
| - against HTML email X |
| / \ |
| |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Ignorance is Bliss...
iEYEARECAAYFAkltLPQACgkQcfN68iZZIcdmpgCfZQv2MpTlrzj60e/OwIf+JK9f
uHAAnjvV/CG5wU0OED3Wa+j3qVyOfFEB
=q5cj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Jan 14 2009
Intro
