RE: Pentest Criteria

["Cor Rosielle" <cor () outpost24 com>]

In my opinion the OSSTMM is truly open source. I'll tell you why.

About two years ago there was something in the OSSTMM I disagreed with and
sent an email about that. I can't even recall the mail address I sent it to.
Pete replied and this was the start of my involvement in the OSSTMM. In no
time I was a reviewer and shortly after I was a contributor. This is an
essential part of an open source project: peer review and allowing community
contribution to the project. I got copies of OSSTMM3 without paying for it.
At least I paid no money, I invested my time (nowadays our company does
contribute to ISECOM as an affiliate partner, but that's not how I got my
first copies of OSSTMM3; those were shared free of costs within an open
source project).

OSSTMM3 is not completely done yet, but like Pete wrote there is plenty
available in bits and pieces. And if you care to spend time on it and
understand what it says, you'll get an idea about what to expect. You'll
also see it is quite different from what the major part of the security
world currently thinks is secure (or even sells as secure). But bits and
pieces is what is available now and you can learn already a lot from it. 

The "world" must wait for the complete document until the document is
completed. I would say this is obvious and don't see why this is not fair.

Cor Rosielle



> -----Original Message-----
> From: listbounce () securityfocus com
> [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Pete Herzog
> Sent: woensdag 8 september 2010 23:19
> To: Wim Remes
> Cc: Ulisses Castro; p0wnsauc3 () googlemail com; TAS; Kurt M. John; pen-
> test () securityfocus com
> Subject: Re: Pentest Criteria
>
> Wim,
>
> > can you explain how exactly an ISO committee is reviewing a "written
> manual" that does not exist yet ? And do you believe more in the
> feedback from an ISO committee than from a community
> > that is working on security in the trenches every single day ?
>
> You misunderstand. ISO isn't reviewing the OSSTMM 3 to better the
> OSSTMM- they are doing it to see how it fits in the ISO family. The
> PEER REVIEW of the OSSTMM happens by anyone who can and will review
> it. We put out calls for reviewers and people show up to review it.
> Most people never respond back but some do and we go on from there.
> Some of the best reviews though come from people who just take that
> which we put out there and start asking questions about it.
>
> The written part is a draft. Just like code that doesn't work, it's
> just ideas and concepts that's getting put together. The hardest part
> is putting all the ideas and concepts together so they make sense. So
> we can publish parts, and we have, but we don't have a whole. It's the
> equivalent of non-functional code. But just so you know we've also
> provided the OSSTMM 3 draft in parts to university students working on
> thesis, NIST, the German government's BSI, the Italian government, a
> few other government offices that I don't remember anymore and many
> contributors and reviewers from around the world.
>
> Again, would you be happier if we published nothing at all until each
> full version is complete?
>
> > On another note, OSSTMM 2.2 is even no longer hosted on the ISECOM
> website. Does it suck THAT hard ?
>
> We don't host it because we could no longer support it. After many
> requests regarding updates for 2.2 we realized we had to remove it as
> a direct link off our site to show that we are working on something
> new. But it's still there. We still carry it in our mirrors. See:
> http://isecom.securenetltd.com/osstmm.en.2.2.pdf
>
> It's not gone from public use. It's just no longer updated by ISECOM.
> We can't support it and work on 3.0.
>
> > Look, people engaged in using 2.2 because it was good, it was
> relevant and it was open.  They could refer their customers to an open
> standard, life was good. Companies invested themselves
> > in using 2.2 because it was worth something.  Then came the promise
> of 3 and companies invested themselves into a paywalled document
> trusting that, by what they saw from 2.2, would kick ass.
> > They got people trained on a subset of an unexisting manual at full
> price , they got people contributing to 3 (how many and how much is
> only known by you) believing one day the sowing would end
> > and the reaping could start. More importantly, they believed YOU that
> 3 would make everything about security different. They trusted YOU.
>
> People used 2.2 because that's what there was. When we realized that
> it was too broken to advance and required a new re-write, we did that.
> We tried to carry 2.2 as long as we could but sometime in 2008 we had
> to stop supporting it. The new material just did not fit with the old
> concepts.
>
> The companies who invested in 3.0 are fine for doing so. It's a living
> breathing project that's growing. They are learning new and better
> concepts for having invested in it. Many of these companies are also
> contributors and sponsors so they have versions of the draft they can
> show their clients.
>
> > What is it you don't get ?
>
> I don't get your anger. Nobody said the OSSTMM is dead or was going
> away. If anything, we've been showing more and more each day that it's
> alive and we're working on it.
>
> Listen, I do think OSSTMM 3 will make security different and better. I
> know it's better. I don't think anyone is let down by it. But I can
> tell you that responding to faulty accusations on mailing lists won't
> make it happen any faster.
>
> -pete.
>
> --
> Pete Herzog - Managing Director - pete () isecom org
> ISECOM - Institute for Security and Open Methodologies
> www.isecom.org - www.osstmm.org
> www.hackerhighschool.org - www.badpeopleproject.org
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> This list is sponsored by: Information Assurance Certification Review
> Board
>
> Prove to peers and potential employers without a doubt that you can
> actually do a proper penetration test. IACRB CPT and CEPT certs require
> a full practical examination in order to become certified.
>
> http://www.iacertification.org
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -



------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is sponsored by: Information Assurance Certification Review Board

Prove to peers and potential employers without a doubt that you can actually do a proper penetration test. IACRB CPT 
and CEPT certs require a full practical examination in order to become certified. 

http://www.iacertification.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------