
Penetration Testing mailing list archives
Re: honeypot in conjunction with pen test?
From: Bennett Todd <bet () rahul net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:22:30 -0400
I've gotten a lot of thoughtful feedback on my proposal; I think there's a lot of agreement that it's either a purely bad idea (a possibility I don't reject out of hand:-), or else if it is to be done, extreme care must be taken to tune the honeypot so that excessive resources aren't wasted by the pen-testers. So we shouldn't have things that tempt the pen-testers to waste a lot of time trying to break in, and whatever the honeypot offers it shouldn't be so easy and obvious as to look out of place, nor so obscure that it cannot be found, nor so serious that they feel they have to make an emergency report. So far one idea has occurred to me; toss a sacrificial box out there, run BIND on it, but don't have NS records pointing to it in public DNS. BIND is a security catastrophe, so just make sure the version is one down-rev so there are known security problems, and see if they find it. -Bennett
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- RE: honeypot in conjunction with pen test? Aleksander P. Czarnowski (Jun 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: honeypot in conjunction with pen test? Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena (Jun 06)
- Re: honeypot in conjunction with pen test? Bennett Todd (Jun 06)
- Re: honeypot in conjunction with pen test? Mike Riley (Jun 06)
- Re: honeypot in conjunction with pen test? Mark Tinberg (Jun 07)
- Re: honeypot in conjunction with pen test? Daniel Polombo (Jun 07)
- honeypot in conjunction with pen test? Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena (Jun 18)
- Re: honeypot in conjunction with pen test? Alex Russell (Jun 19)
- RE: honeypot in conjunction with pen test? Woody Weaver (Jun 19)