On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Eric Budke wrote:
>
> There was some discussion a year or two ago on another list with the guys
> from ISS and NAI (and some others) going back and forth about how they
> actually test, the merits of basing it only off of a banner vs. going
> through with the actual penetration (especially in how it applies to DOS
> testing). Both ways have their merits, but neither tool is flawless.
Wow, that brings back memories, the discussion was actually about 2 1/2
years ago and if I remember correctly it got a bit ugly.
The SNI/Ballista position was that checks should be more than a banner
grab and should actually (to a degree) exploit the problem to bring back
'proof positive'.
After being out of the business (of building scanners) for a while I still
actually feel the same way. Banner grabs to infer vulnerabilities are
sometimes required but they are not a good way to write the product.
However, in cases where you have (non) inetd driven services or other
services which will choke and not restart you have need other methods to
check. That is of course over simplifying it quite a bit, but that's a
microcosm of the issue.
Scanners are of course a poor alternative to hand testing for the most
part but like most of us agree, are usefull for lare scale engagement and
quick problem spotting.
If I were forced to buy a scanner today I would save my money and go with
Nessus. But of course, that is just me :>
Received on Nov 18 2000
Intro
