From: BRIAN HUNTER (bdhunter@bkd.com)
Date: Sun Feb 29 2004 - 12:50:30 EST
You are correct about false positives being an issue with all vulnerability scanners. Any time you automate the process of verifying vulnerabilities, this is going to be a problem. I can tell you that when I do internal testing, I do not use vulnerability scanners at all. This does not mean I don't utilize other tools, but not vulnerability scanners. We address internal testing as if someone inside your network decided to access/damage/remove data, what could they get to. We usually have a limited amount of time onsite and are looking for the lowest hanging fruit first. Do to the time restrictions, our goal is to compromise and gain administrative control of the network versus identifying every potential security vulnerability. The vulnerabilities that we do identify and utilize are documented and recommendations to fix them are provided, but a full security assessment of all network nodes is not the intent of our testing. The intent is to show the network is vulnerable and that management/IT need to
take steps to rectify this. If the customer is not comfortable doing this on their own, we are willing to do a full network security assessment and help them close all potential vulnerabilities/holes. Realize that this is outside of our testing engagement though. I guess to sum it up, I would question as to whether you are trying to provide more service than needed for a test.
>>> "wirepair" <wirepair@roguemail.net> 02/29/04 00:03 AM >>>
lo all,
After reviewing some scan results and finding a number of false positives from nessus (primarly in XP hosts), I began to become a
bit more concerned than I already was.
This is in no way reflecting upon nessus's ability to find vulnerabilities and I truely believe all scanners have these issues.
The question is, what does everyone else do about this? Obviously scanners are never going to be 100% accurate. So I started
to think of ways of checking if these vulnerabilities exist or not. First using a known exploit obviously gives a more accurate
analysis, but known exploits aren't always available. Yes I can write my own for said vulnerability but sometimes this isn't
exactly
possible, for instance some vulnerabilities require a user to say click on a malicious link, which isn't always feasible when
testing 300 workstations. So what else can we do? Check the registry manually, this is an option but very time consuming, does
anyone actually do this??? At this point I believe I'm going to have to start trying. Does anyone simply say, some of these are
false positives and we can't do anything about it? I highly doubt a client will like to hear that. Also some vulnerabilities are
simply too dangerous, windows vulnerabilities in particular that can cause the host to reboot. Not every vulnerability is
perfectly
exploited. So what are the other options people use/feel comfortable with?
Thanks for any responses...
-wire
-- Visit Things From Another World for the best comics, movies, toys, collectibles and more. http://www.tfaw.com/?qt=wmf --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****** BKD, LLP Internet Email Confidentiality Footer ****** Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message, and notify us immediately. If you or your employer does not consent to Internet email messages of this kind, please advise us immediately. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or endorsed by my firm or employer unless otherwise indicated by an authorized representative independent of this message. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:53:49 EDT