Penetration Testing mailing list archives
Re: opinions on Vigliante's SecureScanNX for attack/pen work?
From: Zen <zen () kill-9 it>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:10:58 +0100
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 08:25:16PM -0000, John Lampe wrote:
- it's not the fastest on earth (manually supervised, but it will change in the future)Really? IMO, securescanx scanned a little too fast. I ran a scan against a /24 range of addresses off of a T-1 connection with both Nessus and vigilante whilst running a packet sniffer off of the spanned default gw port....The vigilante was so aggressive that it missed many of the ports
I wasn't referring to the packet-rate speed, but to the <start the test>-<get the report> cycle. As automated test results are manually reviewed, it could take 24/48 hours to be able to get the report after the scan has finished. bye, -- 'Why do you close your eyes?' 'So that the room will be empty.' zen () kill-9 it . Geek . And proud of it . http://www.kill-9.it/jargon/html/entry/zen.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA) Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see: https://alerts.securityfocus.com/
Current thread:
- opinions on Vigliante's SecureScanNX for attack/pen work? Dented Halo (Nov 26)
- RE: opinions on Vigliante's SecureScanNX for attack/pen work? Sacha Faust (Nov 28)
- Re: opinions on Vigliante's SecureScanNX for attack/pen work? Zen (Nov 29)
- Re: opinions on Vigliante's SecureScanNX for attack/pen work? John Lampe (Nov 30)
- Re: opinions on Vigliante's SecureScanNX for attack/pen work? Zen (Nov 30)
- Re: opinions on Vigliante's SecureScanNX for attack/pen work? John Lampe (Nov 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: opinions on Vigliante's SecureScanNX for attack/pen work? H Carvey (Nov 27)