Penetration Testing mailing list archives

Re: Vulnerability Scanning Doesn't Work


From: ArcSighter Elite <arcsighter () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:03:14 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Abe Getchell wrote:
Hey Adriel,

The title and opening paragraph of your blog post are quite misleading and
rather reckless. There is definitely a false sense of security that is sold
to some organizations by the developers of vulnerability scanning tools, but
that is the fault of the purchasing organization (due to a lack of education
and unqualified individuals making decisions), not those companies pushing
their product. It's a consumer problem, not a technology or process problem,
which you seem to describe it as in the bulk of your blog post.
Vulnerability scanning tools can have a wonderfully awesome impact on your
security posture if they're used in a manner in which they function
adequately; as a compliance tool. While I understand the sales aspect of
your blog post, what your customers (and any other organization
investigating this type of technology) should understand is that they should
not be "using a team of talented hackers for security testing instead of
relying on automated vulnerability scanners", but rather "using a team of
talented hackers AND vulnerability scanners for security testing and
compliance".

See ya,
Abe


I agree.
IMHO, a pen-testers team is a must-use for any penetration testing
scenario; they should be experienced people and the matter if they use
vuln scanners or not, is of their choice.
I see over and over (even in this list) post such as:
"I'm doing a penetration test against a company. After running Acunetix,
it show reports of x sql injection vulnerabilities. How can I probe my
customer this is a high risk vuln? (...)"
What company could trust their security to such case?
I think no-one with a little of common sense.
Vuln scanners are useful, but as I said, as with most tools, the human
knowledge is the real factor. When you combine both they you get pen-test.

Honestly.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJZj/iH+KgkfcIQ8cRAusCAJ97dUxaYh0EVIr1b6x8CP3iBT8JUwCfTc3O
gwCsn8ac113S5HT8eGP1S0U=
=e2nz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Current thread: