Penetration Testing mailing list archives
RE: Limited vs full blown testing
From: "Jerry Shenk" <jshenk () decommunications com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:37:15 -0400
He SPECIFICALLY excluded DDOS. Of course, if you sit in on the network with a battery of laptops and find a few amplifiers internally, you can do a DDOS...that's why he excluded it. In fact, it was the VERY NEXT sentence after the first sentence you snipped out. How about some more basic DOS attempts. Doing that type of thing internally doesn't seem very practical to me. Now, about doing a DOS in a penetration test or vulnerability assessment...sure, it makes sense. -----Original Message----- From: R. DuFresne [mailto:dufresne () sysinfo com] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 4:13 PM To: Peter Wood Cc: pen-test () securityfocus com Subject: Re: Limited vs full blown testing [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!
Current thread:
- Limited vs full blown testing Toby Barrick (Jun 24)
- RE: Limited vs full blown testing Jerry Shenk (Jun 24)
- Re: Limited vs full blown testing Richard Rager (Jun 24)
- Re: Limited vs full blown testing Peter Wood (Jun 24)
- Re: Limited vs full blown testing R. DuFresne (Jun 24)
- RE: Limited vs full blown testing Jerry Shenk (Jun 27)
- RE: Limited vs full blown testing R. DuFresne (Jun 27)
- Re: Limited vs full blown testing R. DuFresne (Jun 24)
- Re: Limited vs full blown testing Martin Mačok (Jun 25)
- RE: Limited vs full blown testing Markowsky, Tyler (Jun 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Limited vs full blown testing Bénoni MARTIN (Jun 24)
- RE: Limited vs full blown testing Martin Murray-Brown (Jun 24)
- Re: Limited vs full blown testing El C0chin0 (Jun 24)
- IE caching issue jatkinson (Jun 27)
- Re: IE caching issue Daniel Staal (Jun 28)
- IE caching issue jatkinson (Jun 27)
- RE: Limited vs full blown testing Thompson, Jimi (Jun 27)
- RE: Limited vs full blown testing Wayne Wooley (Jun 27)