Re: Penetration testing via shrinkware

[Bill_Royds () pch gc ca]

> What are the opinions on the thoroughness of shrink-wrap software
> penetration testing?  Is today's shrinkware more capable for penetration
> testing (a single machine) than a human?

I guess it depends on the human! :)

Can a program do a better job of testing than a lame, clueless
human? Sure! Can a program do a better job of testing than a
fairly experienced security guru? No. Can a program do a better
job of testing than an 3ll33t? No.


mjr.












Shrinkware should not be used instead of a proper penetration testing
      exercise but as a first step.
Essentially shrinkware encapsulates some standard methods of testing so
that one does not have to re-invent the wheel for each system that one
wants to examine. Today's software will remember far more detail than any
human could and expresses the sum of knowledge of many individuals. It
helps the practitioner find the obvious flaws so that he or she can spend
more effort examining the more subtle problems like systems ability to
monitor attacks so that it doesn't cry wolf to often nor ignore real
attacks. They are not a lamer if they use shrinkwrap, but they are if the
assume that that is all their is to testing.

If shrinkwap software finds problems, then you know the system is flawed.
But if shrinkwrap doesn't find problems, that implies you have at least a
start on where to look and can avoid waisting time in obvious places. It
doesn't mean there  are no problems, just that you will have to do your job
with a good starting point.