Penetration Testing mailing list archives
Re: Testing large networks
From: Dhruv Soi <dhruv_ymca () yahoo com>
Date: 8 Mar 2005 20:57:09 -0000
In-Reply-To: <c7821a3105030508054af0836f () mail gmail com> Greetz Don, To handle such a situation you need to workout on two kinds of reports. First one would focus on Managements requirement. As you mentioned they are not much aware of Pen-Testing process. So you need to provide them a layman report. Reviewing which, they can get a fair idea about weakest part of their IT infra. It could be at the max. 5 page report. Rather than showing in-depth techniques, you need to show week polices in this report. As IT Department would be involved in tightening the security. So you should provide a second report to them with ample information about their network/systems. And this report can exceed any number of pages. I am sure you will find few 100s of weakness in Network that may be in terms of Vulnerabilities/Information Disclosure/Password weakness/Default running services/OS response of TCP/IP Stack for DOS attacks and many more. So in such situation if report comes in few hundreds pages, it should not disappoint anyone till the time report involves healthy information about network/systems. But first you need to create a report for IT department including every part. And then make the report optimistic to present in front of management by stripping out technical details and simply putting bad policies and resources that are required to maintain security. I think management is investing to get pen-test report, coz they would like to know by investing in which area/device they can feel more secure. Thanks Dhruv
Received: (qmail 16776 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2005 15:51:10 -0000 Received: from outgoing.securityfocus.com (HELO outgoing2.securityfocus.com) (205.206.231.26) by mail.securityfocus.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2005 15:51:10 -0000 Received: from lists.securityfocus.com (lists.securityfocus.com [205.206.231.19]) by outgoing2.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP id 585FA1439CC; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:58:11 -0700 (MST) Mailing-List: contact pen-test-help () securityfocus com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: <pen-test.list-id.securityfocus.com> List-Post: <mailto:pen-test () securityfocus com> List-Help: <mailto:pen-test-help () securityfocus com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pen-test-unsubscribe () securityfocus com> List-Subscribe: <mailto:pen-test-subscribe () securityfocus com> Delivered-To: mailing list pen-test () securityfocus com Delivered-To: moderator for pen-test () securityfocus com Received: (qmail 4147 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2005 16:20:45 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ILs9ovs4cG/uxEBqd85owA7k/6oWr0WvZr20svS8+g3WjEzjiKGFywDwYtmxvkGz+9nmdPYGwQcO/dTQj4xYoUDGK0vglKX6ERCAyFr/IvUwHGVFKS++mKf3bNWPBk8gzSabo6TRF3vvi154pMrSuJLD+yQ4dMbAzzf3ZA0VsCI= Message-ID: <c7821a3105030508054af0836f () mail gmail com> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:05:23 +0000 From: Dan Rogers <pentestguy () gmail com> Reply-To: Dan Rogers <pentestguy () gmail com> To: pen-test () securityfocus com Subject: Testing large networks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi list, In the last few months I have been asked to assess a number of fairly large networks, which have been addressed very inefficiently. So, usually this consists of one or two main networks with about 1000 devices, and ten or so remote sites connected by WAN links or VPN's. It's not uncommon for the HQ to have a class B (or worse) as their internal subnet, even though there are nowhere near that many hosts. The problem I have is that a lot of the owners of these networks don't really know what they want in terms of testing, and ask very generic questions - things like "we want to know where we are weakest" or even "we want to know whats on our network". A lot of the motivation for this testing is usually passed down from senor management who just want to feel are secure, so they tell their IT managers to get a pen test without knowing what it means. This means IT managers can't often tell me what they actually want to be tested. I'm effectively given a blank sheet, and free reign to approach the testing from any angle I choose. It is also not uncommon for there to be little or no useful documentation - so I rarely have a complete set of network diagrams from which to work. These engagements mostly range from seven to twenty working days. Usually the approach goes something like this. 1. Ask IT manager to identify critical network infrastructure (servers, routers, wireless access points, Domain Controllers) - chose a representative sample for review 2. Attempt to establish general network architecture using a network-mapping tool 3. Perform internal scanning of network using NMAP/Nessus or GFI LANguard 4. look for really obvious problems. E.g. public/private SNMP or default passwords, missing patches, well known open trojan ports Create report giving fairly high-level areas of concern, and remediation (e.g. patch management solution/strategy, segregate servers from workstations with firewalls, update default passwords/use strong password strategy) When I conduct the tests, time is usually very tight, and therefore scanning of internal networks is quite costly time wise (especially if there is a class A/B to scan). Following a methodology which recommends scanning in several different ways and checking TCP responses just isn't practical. Using something like nessus can yield hundreds and hundreds of pages of results, and wading through them looking for false-positives is also not practical. So how do you lot approach testing a lage network? Also, how do you decide what to report to the client on? Cheers Dan
Current thread:
- Testing large networks Dan Rogers (Mar 07)
- Re: Testing large networks Matthew Caston (Mar 07)
- RE: Testing large networks Randy Golly (Mar 07)
- Re: Testing large networks Anders Thulin (Mar 08)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Testing large networks Davi Ottenheimer (Mar 07)
- RE: Testing large networks Piskovatskov, Alexey (Mar 07)
- Re: Testing large networks Dhruv Soi (Mar 08)