Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners
From: "Stuart Fox (DSL AK)" <StuartF () datacom co nz>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:22:28 +1200
Question: Should admins be using securityscanners? Someone should be. Admins should be to confirm that theirenvironmentis in the state that they believe it to be.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my experience, the guy who set a system up shouldn't be the one to inspect it, or verify it.
Well in some environments that's not an option. In others, you might delegate setting up a system to junior techs and you need to confirm that they've been following correct procedures. It might also indicate that your procedures are useless.
Also, I'm sort of thinking that if someone doesn't know how to set up and maintain a system, what good is it for that same person to run a scanner on it?
Well, it might indicate to them that there are issues with the way they do things. Sure, if they're not paying attention or are not switched on, they might not get anything from running a scanner. However, if they are learning, they'll say "Hey, I could improve my process here and make things better". The answer to your question is, it depends, and the good will range from nothing to a lot.
Again, have new types of vulnerabilities been discovered, are there new best practices. The reason Code Red hit so hard was because people didn't know about removing script mappings - itwasn't a commonbest practice. It became one pretty quickly after Code Red.Actually, the best practice of removing unnecessary functionality has long been in place, well before Code Red reared it's head. The same is true with the best practice of removing unnecessary script mappings...this was documented by Microsoft and available for free from their site well before Code Red came out.
Removing unnecessary functionality has indeed been in place for a long time. Code Red indicated that whether Microsoft documented it or not, the best practice wasn't common. In fact, before Code Red, it wasn't exactly obvious that this was a recommended best practice, and the documentation wasn't really clear. It's very clear now.
With regards to the rest of your comments, I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that a security scanner shouldn't be run...I just don't think that admins should be the ones to run the scanner.
That's not how it read. Admins is a pretty blanket statement. In an ideal world, security admins should run the scan while others do their work. However, in a lot of environments, there isn't a dedicated security admin - it's just a normal admin who has to manage security along with the other 10 million things he has to do. Is that bad? - yep, it sucks. However, an admin running the scanner is better than noone running the scanner. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners Starford, Christopher D. (Apr 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners Ng, Kenneth (US) (Apr 28)
- RE: Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners Stuart Fox (DSL AK) (Apr 28)
- RE: Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners Stuart Fox (DSL AK) (Apr 28)
- RE: Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners Ron DuFresne (Apr 30)
- RE: Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners Starford, Christopher D. (Apr 30)