Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: [Professional IT Security Providers - Exposed] Cybertrust ( C + )


From: "SecReview" <secreview () hushmail com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:26:52 -0500

Greetings list. 

We've had an abundant amount of questions and challenges with 
respect to the grades that we give to businesses. As a result we 
will be posting a grade key on our site in the near future. 

At the risk of being redundant, our opinions of companies are 
formed by approaching the companies as prospective buyers. We have 
deep technical conversations with managers and team leaders 
whenever possible. In conjunction with that we collect a wide array 
of information including but not limited to sample reports, testing 
methodologies, team overviews, web page content, research 
performed, and in some cases even proposals. 

Even with that our reviews are not perfect which is why we are 
willing to change our opinion provided that someone can help us 
change it legitimately. It is also for this reason why we allow 
people to post comments to the blog based on their experience with 
particular companies. 

It is good to say that so far, based on comments from readers, 
we've been spot on with our reviews. We have yet to have anyone 
prove to us that our reviews were wrong, bad, or unfair. Sure we've 
had the teenage trolls bashing us, but they really don't count.

If you (the list) would like to see us change our grading from A to 
F to something else, then please provide us with an example of what 
you'd like. If enough people request it then we'll set up a vote 
and choose a different standard. 

Other than that, keep reading the blog and we'll post our key soon. 
For now just remember A == Best and F == Worst... but then again, 
isn't that obvious?


Once we collect those materials

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:05:36 -0500 "guiness.stout" 
<guinness.stout () gmail com> wrote:
I'm not really clear on how you are grading these companies.  I've 
had
no personal experience with them but I don't decide a companies
quality of work simply by their website and what information I get
from some customer support person.  These "grades" seem pointless 
and
frankly unfounded.  You should reword your grading system to 
specify
the ease of use of their websites and not the service they 
provide.
Especially if you haven't ordered any services from them.  I'm not
defending anyone here just pointing out some flaws in this 
"grading."

On Dec 20, 2007 12:11 AM, secreview <secreview () hushmail com> 
wrote:
One of our readers made a request that we review Cybertrust
("http://www.cybertrust.com";). Cybertrust was recently acquired 
by Verizon
and as a result this review was a bit more complicated and 
required a lot
more digging to complete (In fact its now Cybertrust and 
Netsec). Never the
less, we managed to dig information specific to Cybertrust out 
of Verizon
representatives. We would tell you that we used the website for 
information
collection, but in all reality the website was useless. Not only 
was it
horribly written and full of marketing fluff, but the services 
were not
clearly defined.

As an example, when you view the Cybertrust services in their 
drop down menu
you are presented with the following service offerings: 
Application
Security, Assessments, Certification, Compliance/Governance, 
Consulting,
Enterprise Security, Identity Management Investigative Response 
/Forensics,
Managed Security Services, Partner Security Program Security 
Management
Program, and SSL Certificates. The first thing you think is 
"what the hell?"
the second is "ok so they offer 12 services".

Well as you dig into each service you quickly find out that they 
do not
offer 12 services, but instead they have 12 links to 12 
different pages full
of marketing fluff. As you read each of the pages in an attempt 
to wrap your
mind around what they are offering as individually packaged 
services you're
left with more questions than answers. So again, what the hell?

Here's an example. Their "Application Security" service page 
does not
contain a description about a Web Application Security service. 
In fact, it
doesn't even contain a description about a System 
Software/Application
security service. Instead it contains a super high level, super 
vague and
fluffy description that covers a really general idea of 
"Application"
security services. When you really read into it you find out 
that their
Application Security service should be broken down into multiple 
different
defined service offerings.

Even more frustrating is that their Application Security service 
is a
consulting service and that they have a separate service 
offering called
Consulting. When you read the description for Consulting, it is 
also vague
and mostly useless, but does cover the "potential" for 
Application Security.

So, trying to learn anything about Cybertrust from their web 
page is like
trying to pull teeth out of a possessed chicken. We decided that 
we would
move on and call Cybertrust to see what we could get out of them 
with a
conversation. That proved to be a real pain in the ass too as 
their website
doesn't list any telephone numbers. We ended up calling verizon 
and after
talking to 4 people we finally found a Cybertrust 
representative.

At last, a human being that could provide us with useful 
information and
answers to our questions about their services. We did receive 
about 2mb of
materials from our contact at Cybertrust, but the materials were 
all
marketing fluff, totally useless. That being said, our 
conversation with the
representative gave us a very clear understanding of how 
Cybertrust delivers
there services. In all honesty, we were not all that impressed.

Cybertrust does perform their own Vulnerability Research and 
Development (or
so we were told) under the umbrella of ICSAlabs which they own. 
Usually we'd
say that this is great because that research is often used to 
augment
services and enhance overall service quality. With respect to 
Cybertrust, we
couldn't find out what they were doing with their research. They 
just told
us that they don't release advisories and then refused to tell 
us what they
did with the research.

When we asked them about their services and testing 
methodologies, we were
first told that they couldn't discuss that. We were told that 
their
methodologies were confidential. But after a bit of Social 
Engineering and
sweet talking we were able to get more information...

As it turns out, the majority of the Cybertrust services rely on 
what they
say are proprietary automated scanners which were developed in-
house. Their
methodology is to run the automated scanners against a specific 
target or
set of targets, and then to pass the results to a seasoned 
professional.
That professional then verifies the results via manual testing 
and produces
a report that contains the vetted results.

This methodology doesn't really offer any depth and doesn't do 
much to raise
the proverbial security bar. In fact, it is only slightly better 
than
running a Qualys scan, changing the wording of the report, and 
delivering
that. Quality methodologies should contain no more than 20% 
automated
testing and no less than 80% manual testing. Vulnerability 
discovery should
be done via manual testing, not just via automated testing.

In defense of Cybertrust, they did say that they would test in 
accordance
with the customers requirements. They also did say that if the 
customer
wanted 100% manual testing that they would do it. If they want 
100%
automated "rubber stamp of approval" testing they would do that 
too. Saying
it is a lot different than doing it though and we weren't 
impressed with
their standard/default testing methodology as previously 
mentioned.

It is important to note that Cybertrust is also a full service 
security
provider. They offer a wide range of services from supporting 
secure product
development services, to security testing, and even forensic 
services. With
that said, their services do not seem to be anything special. In 
fact, they
seem to be just about average short of their horrible website 
and
overwhelming marketing fluff.

It is our recommendation that you choose a different provider if 
you are
looking for well defined, high quality services. Cybertrust is 
cloaked in a
thick layer of marketing fluff and frankly doesn't seem to be 
very easy to
work with. That being said, they were also not easy to review. 
If you
disagree with this post or have worked with Cybertrust in the 
past, then
please leave us a comment. We're going to give Cybertrust a "C" 
but if you
can convince us that they deserve a different grade then we'll 
revise our
opinion.

Thanks for reading.

--
 Posted By secreview to Professional IT Security Providers - 
Exposed at
12/19/2007 07:32:00 PM
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Regards, 
      The Secreview Team
      http://secreview.blogspot.com
      Professional IT Security Service Providers - Exposed

--
Click to learn how to become a world famous writer or poet.
http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4d5YXMhO9GyzS1Aset0uvsnjfR4lqmTKEjRGA6ezTy2t6Vyo/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/


Current thread: