Re: Limited vs full blown testing

["R. DuFresne" <dufresne () sysinfo com>]

        [SNIP]

> We accept a brief excluding DoS attacks, as most clients just won't support 
> DoS testing. However we include appripriate caveats in our report and 
> continue to suggest they do these tests.

I'm trying to understand the significance of DDOS testing and importance.
Thing is, if you can spew packets fast enough, or make enough connections
to consume the resources involved, you can take a site/serice down for at
least the duration of the attack, even pipes as large as those of
akami<sp?> were proven to be susceptable in recent days.  It's a given
vector of attack that we live with, a risk level we hope to avoid.  But,
not something that gives away the insides of the network to thugs and
theives.  No root shell and all that, which constitute a real threat, at
least in my mind.  Perhaps I'm missing something that has come up in
recent years that redefines DDOS as something that is preventable and a
potential for something other then a blip, however long lasting the
attack, in service?

Thanks,

Ron DuFresne
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        admin & senior security consultant:  sysinfo.com
                        http://sysinfo.com

"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
                -- Johnny Hart

testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!