From: KeenerPB@mcnosc.usmc.mil
Date: Tue Aug 22 2006 - 08:54:59 EDT
I would disagree with Arian regarding the technical aspects of "true"
hacking...in my experience, social engineering plays a huge role in
successful compromise of a network. Most of the time the boundaries are
pretty tight so you have to lob one over the fence (social engineering) in
order to punch out from the inside to defeat the boundary devices.
One way to audit "user awareness" is to develop three emails attacks...each
one increasing in difficulty of detection...then you log how successful each
one is...this will give you some idea of the effectiveness of current user
awareness training.
The reason I like to use this method is that this is a common vector for
attackers...there are others, but this will give you an idea of whether they
are concientious users...is someone operating in a superuser mode...how easy
is it to gain a successful entry into the network?
Remember...water follows the path of least resistance...so do attackers.
Capt. Paul B. Keener
OIC, Marine Corps Red Team
Marine Corps Network Operations Security Command
NIPR: keenerpb@mcnosc.usmc.mil
SIPR: keenerpb@mcnosc.usmc.smil.mil
STE: 703.784.4327 (DSN 278)
Cell: 703.399.9639
-----Original Message-----
From: Arian J. Evans [mailto:arian.evans@anachronic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:46 AM
To: pen-test@securityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Penetration Testing - Human Factor
I've seen nothing quantifiable.
FWIW - every forensic engagement I have done of "true"
hacking has had nothing to do with social engineering, and was entirely
technical. Most appeared to be performed by SKiddies, but at least one was
very subtle, and was performed by someone with real skill.
I do see a biased sample though, since people do not generally come to me
after they've been socially engineered, unless it's a girl I've dated.
Your first statement does raise the question though about how does a skeptic
conclude something before they gather evidence?
Arian J. Evans
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marios A. Spinthiras [mailto:mario@netway.com.cy]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 1:20 AM
> To: pen-test@securityfocus.com
> Subject: Penetration Testing - Human Factor
>
> As a thorough sceptic Id like to conclude in most cases of a TRUE
> hacking incident social engineering has been a factor of success for
> the malicious user attacking a system.
> For quite a while now I have been compiling methodology on the
> assessment of the weak human security link which can be exploited
> through social engineering. Has anyone got any thoughts they would
> like to share or guidelines to the audit of the human factor when
> security is concerned?
>
> Any information is much apreciated.
>
>
> Many Thanks,
> Mario A. Spinthiras
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
>
> Need to secure your web apps?
> Cenzic Hailstorm finds vulnerabilities fast.
> Click the link to buy it, try it or download Hailstorm for FREE.
> http://www.cenzic.com/products_services/download_hailstorm.php
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
Need to secure your web apps?
Cenzic Hailstorm finds vulnerabilities fast.
Click the link to buy it, try it or download Hailstorm for FREE.
http://www.cenzic.com/products_services/download_hailstorm.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:56:47 EDT