Re: Security Audit

From: Erik Tayler (erikat_private)
Date: Thu Sep 06 2001 - 18:18:36 PDT

  • Next message: Matthew Leeds: "Re: DoS tools"

    On Thursday 06 September 2001 01:41 am, Wertheimer, Ishai wrote:
    > Forrest,
    >
    > I'm not sure what is considered as pen-test in your eyes, but running
    > Nessus for 20 minutes is not any pen-test !
    
    I don't remember hearing Forrest claim that running Nessus qualified as a 
    pen-test. Actually, the point I got was that he disliked the fact that some 
    companies do in fact simply run tools such as Nessus against a network; And 
    after they do that, they do nothing but throw a large mangled report at upper 
    management. Read the fine print people.
    
    > Even if you think Nessus can do better than any other tool, by automating
    > and covering any possible vulnerability found in the past (which I could
    > doubt) -  is this a pen-test?
    
    I've been reading all the replies to Forrest's post. Everybody seems to have 
    strayed a bit from the original topic. His point was never to prove that 
    running automated tools in order to save time > manual penetration testing. 
    Everybody here should also know that Nessus doesn't do penetration testing, 
    so it probably wouldn't be wise to imply that it could be a replacement for a 
    pen-test.
    
    Let's all take sides here and get into a bar-room brawl, eh?
    
    Erik Tayler
    
    > Ishai.
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Forrest Rae [mailto:forrest@code-lab.com]
    > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 9:49 PM
    > To: pen-testat_private
    > Subject: Re: Security Audit
    >
    >
    > Hi Simon,
    > Hi pentest-list,
    >
    > <IMHO>
    >
    > The time spent is relational to the number of hosts being audited, and
    > the security company's defined assessment process.  As a customer, I
    > would imagine one has the right to review the processes of your
    > consultants.  You should find out if the companies are going to run any
    > automatic vulnerability assessment tools such as Nessus, or an in house
    > product.  If they are just going to run nessus on you, and print out the
    > report it generates, do they really need 20+ hours to do that?  (If you
    > have several hundred hosts, then they probably do need 20+)  If they do
    > 100% of the work by hand, then they may require extra time.  This brings
    > me to question why are they doing assessments by hand when there are
    > great tools like Nessus?
    >
    > A good estimate of time for a "Once Over" breaks down like this:
    >
    > Vulnerability Assessment:
    > 20 minutes per host
    >
    > Penetration Test:
    > 1 Hour per host
    >
    > Internal assessments usually take a little longer because you generally
    > have access to more services, network devices, employees, etc...
    >
    > I am also interested in other people's estimates of time per host.  :)
    >
    > -Forrest
    >
    > </IMHO>
    >
    > Simon Wellborne wrote:
    > > Hello all,
    > >
    > > We have a company or two providing quotes on a security audit, including
    > > penetration tests.
    > >
    > > I am a little concerned about the amount of hours being quoted for some
    > > of these tests.
    > >
    > > >From peoples experience (and I would like to hear from Professionals who
    > >
    > > comduct audits) about what timeframes are 'normally' used.
    > >
    > > Our network is relatively small (20-40 users + servers).
    > >
    > > Appreciate all replies
    > >
    > > Regards
    >
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >- 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/
    > ***************************************************************************
    >** The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
    > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email
    > by anyone else is unauthorized.
    >
    > If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
    > distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
    > is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any
    > opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and
    > conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
    > ***************************************************************************
    >**
    >
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >- 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/
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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/
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 06 2001 - 16:05:24 PDT