I disagree, I like to see blog posts here. This being that I don't
know of these blogs and would probably never visit them if I had not
gotten the email from this list. I have had the pleasure of seeing
several great blog posts due to this list. It wouldn't be bad if
there was another list for just blogs if it bothers people so much.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Steve Armstrong <stevearmstrong () logicallysecure com
> wrote:
Adriel,
This is not meant to be confrontational despite sounding that way,
but in
the interest of brevity -
I thought this was a mail list and not a bloggers hijack point. I
am sure
you blog is interesting to some, but I would rather not get every post
rammed down my inbox, I didn't sign up for that - it wasn't a check
box on
the security focus web site signup page.
And let's think about this, what makes you so special - if everyone
auto
emailed their blog posts the mail list would rapidly lose its
value. So as
a suggestion why not keep your blog posts on.... your blog, and
leave the
mail list to being a mail list.
Keeping it simple.
Steve A
-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com
] On
Behalf Of Adriel T. Desautels
Sent: 08 January 2009 18:54
To: ArcSighter Elite
Cc: me () abegetchell com; pen-test () securityfocus com; 'Security Basics'
Subject: Revising it [Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work]
To all of you who have commented:
My last entry/article received a lot of input from a lot of different
people. Some of the people were emotional, insulting and just not
constructive but yet still amusing. Others were highly constructive
and offered their perspective on what it was that I published. My goal
with the blog is to make it an informational resource that is accurate
and truthful. As such, I am going to make a few more modifications to
the entry as to accommodate some things that I left out.
Would the readers of this list rather that I post the entire blog
entry to the list? Would the rather that I post a link? Or would they
rather that I just not post here at all? I've set up a poll on the
blog if you're interested in participating. The last thing that I want
to do is to force my views down anyone's throats.
Anyway, thank you again for the comments, I'm trying to keep it real.
On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:03 PM, ArcSighter Elite wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 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.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFJZj/iH+KgkfcIQ8cRAusCAJ97dUxaYh0EVIr1b6x8CP3iBT8JUwCfTc3O
> gwCsn8ac113S5HT8eGP1S0U=
> =e2nz
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Adriel T. Desautels
ad_lists () netragard com
--------------------------------------
Subscribe to our blog
http://snosoft.blogspot.com
The information contained in this e-Mail and any subsequent
correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended
recipient(s). The information in this communication may be
confidential and/or legally privileged. Nothing in this e-mail is
intended to conclude a contract on behalf of Logically Secure Ltd or
make Logically Secure Ltd subject to any other legally binding
commitments, unless the e-mail contains an express statement to the
contrary or incorporates a formal Purchase Order. For persons other
than the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such
information is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Registered in England and Wales No: 05967368. Registered Office: 36
Tudor Road, Lincoln, LN6 3LL.
Intro
