RE: Re: Vulnerability Assessment

["Gibbs, Jason" <Jason.Gibbs () paradigmhealth com>]

Personally, for scanning purposes I love the ISS internet scanner. The
reports are not that great, setting up a scan takes some time and it is
pricey.  I have yet to use a VA scanner as good as the ISS product and I
have tried out many of them.
I too had questioned my network topology being stored offsite. I spoke
with some techs at Qualys and got in to detail about how the data is
stored. It is also one of the most used VA products so I based my
opinion on those details. There comes a time when I just give in to my
own paranoia :)

-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
On Behalf Of mkburns () gmail com
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:52 PM
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: Re: Vulnerability Assessment

Personally I have issues with the Qualys solution as it requires that
your vulnerability information be stored offsite at Qualys. Which even
if your happy someone else having access to this information, what
happend if your Internet connectivity is bought down during an attack?

In regards to Foundstone, as a scanner it is fine, however from a
scalability point of view it is not very flexible, with each scanner
requiring a full copy of Windows 2003 Server, IIS and SQL - if you
deploy multiple scanners and want to centrally collate your results then
you need to use and export/import utility. 

If you purely want a scanner stick with Nessus.

If you want a vulnerability management system, whereby you can centrally
collate you results, track the remediation of vulnerabilities, fine
grain reporting and the flexibility to install the scanner on Windows
platform then I would recommend eEye Retina and REM Console.