Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Revising it [Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work]
From: "Adriel T. Desautels" <ad_lists () netragard com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:39:40 -0500
Mike,Thanks a lot for the great comments. Unfortunately the moderator has spoken and as a result the only option that I have is to post the complete entries to the list instead of just a link. It doesn't make much sense to me other than guessing that Security Focus feels that I'm advertising. I don't really understand that mentality though because thats no different than sending emails with my signature. Like I said once before, this list isn't my target market so I'm not sure that its effective advertising. Never the less... must abide by the moderator's rules. ;]
On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Siedelberg, Mike wrote:
Hey man, don't you worry, this was a great post that resulted in a gooddiscussion which in turn brought up a lot of valid points. There issomething about the idea that you are advertising your blog or promoting your company that has some merit, but I never took your post to be that.Probably a bad idea to use automatic posting to the list though. Disabling that feature and providing a link seems acceptable. When I saw that part, I knew right away it would get negative response.While your post may not be pertinent to everyone, as we share different interests, no one is forcing anyone to visit that link. I would rather just exercise my delete key than miss such a good discussion. There is a huge volume of spam and such these days, people might be just a littlebit sensitive. Here's the original message: Greetings all. I've finished another entry on our blog. This time the entry was about why vulnerability scanners do not work. It goes into alittle bit of detail and is intended for the average reader. My goal wasto help to educate people about what vulnerability scanning really is. For the record, I did add the email address of this list to my blogger so that entries are automatically posted to this list. If anyone isagainst me doing that, or if that is a violation of the list policy thenplease let me know and I'll stick with this method of letting people know. (I'm not sure if it worked hence why I'm writing this email). Anyway, here's the latest entry: http://snosoft.blogspot.com/2009/01/vulnerability-scanning-doesnt-work.h tml As always, comments are more than welcome.I can't find anything objectionable with this aside from that automatic posting bit. Look at it like this, the members of this list are on hereto post and read. Blogs are not members of the list and should not be allowed to automatically post. It's kind of you to want to help, butprovide the reference link and let folks make up their own mind whetherto visit the link (or not).Anyway, keep up the good work, very much appreciated. Let's move on...G Mike Siedelberg IT Security Senior Staff Prudential Global Data Services Desk Phone: 517-367-3546 Cell: 517-230-0922 -----Original Message-----From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com ]On Behalf Of Adriel T. Desautels Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:54 PM To: ArcSighter Elite Cc: me () abegetchell com; 'pen-test list'; '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 notconstructive but yet still amusing. Others were highly constructive and offered their perspective on what it was that I published. My goal withthe 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 entryto 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 ifyou're interested in participating. The last thing that I want to do isto 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 ofvulnerability scanning tools, but that is the fault of the purchasingorganization (due to a lack of education and unqualified individuals making decisions), not those companies pushing their product. It's aconsumer problem, not a technology or process problem, which you seemto describe it as in the bulk of your blog post.Vulnerability scanning tools can have a wonderfully awesome impact onyour 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 otherorganization investigating this type of technology) should understandis 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, AbeI agree. IMHO, a pen-testers team is a must-use for any penetration testingscenario; they should be experienced people and the matter if they usevuln 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 humanknowledge 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
Adriel T. Desautels ad_lists () netragard com -------------------------------------- Subscribe to our blog http://snosoft.blogspot.com
Current thread:
- RE: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work Abe Getchell (Jan 08)
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work ArcSighter Elite (Jan 08)
- Message not available
- Revising it [Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work] Adriel T. Desautels (Jan 08)
- RE: Revising it [Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work] Siedelberg, Mike (Jan 12)
- Re: Revising it [Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work] Adriel T. Desautels (Jan 12)
- Revising it [Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work] Adriel T. Desautels (Jan 08)
- Message not available
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work NeZa (Jan 09)
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work Adriel T. Desautels (Jan 09)
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work Adriel T. Desautels (Jan 12)
- Message not available
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work Adriel T. Desautels (Jan 13)
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work NeZa (Jan 14)
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work Rob Thompson (Jan 14)
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work NeZa (Jan 09)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work Michael Condon (Jan 13)
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work krymson (Jan 13)
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work Adriel T. Desautels (Jan 15)
- Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work Brian Ford (Jan 15)