From: danielrm26 (danielrm26@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 28 2004 - 09:46:09 EST
Clint Bodungen wrote:
> If you leave out the hacker/cracker verbiage, point of view B.S.,
> "professional" vs "non-professional", and focus on logical definitions and
> apply them to the subject you have your answer. It's amazing how logical
> facts can elevate so much objective discussion:
...snipped by danielrm26
> Therefore, "penetration" testing is (or should be) _part of_ a complete
> vulnerability assessment.
Your methodical analysis is flawless, with one exception -- *it doesn't
represent reality*. Whether it's true or not from an academic
standpoint, anyone in the field knows that vunl assessments and
pen-tests are very distinct from eachother. But yes, you bring good
points. It's just that, as you noted, *should* and *is* are two
completely different animals.
-danielrm26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:53:47 EDT