From: Daniel Miessler (daniel@dmiessler.com)
Date: Wed Aug 03 2005 - 00:37:28 EDT
On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Hagen, Eric wrote:
> Learn the difference between a cracker, hacker and a
> script-kiddie. FYI, good pen-testers are BY DEFINITION, good
> hackers. Bad
> pen-testers are almost always uhhh "white hat script-kiddies".
Dude, this is perhaps the best description of pentesting skillsets
that I've ever seen. I am quite unhappy with where I personally fall
on that scale, but I'm working to improve my position. :) Well said,
man...well said.
> but being a good pen-tester is basically akin to being a good cracker.
Exactly, and I'd add to this that true cracking starts only when
you've run every packaged tool and found NO MAJOR OPENINGS. If you
can get in after finding out that there aren't any massive
vulnerabilities, *then* you can call yourself a pentester. Until then
you're mostly just running tools and pressing buttons.
I've cracked a decent number of networks in my time as a professional
and I always get praise for it. Although I may have done something
pretty cool stuff to get control of a network (in the few cases where
there was at least *some* challenge), the openings I had were always
too large to earn myself any self-respect. It's not cracking if your
first foothold was a vulnerability that lets you use an attack
already in Metasploit. That's just too easy, and if it's easy -- it's
not true cracking.
The absolute worst, though, is being called a hacker. It's
despicable. I feel like screaming, "You shouldn't even be allowed to
use that word, let alone give the title to someone else." The
Princess Bride always comes to mind:
Presenter: "This is Daniel, he's a hacker."
Me: "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
So yeah, the differences are very important, as is knowing where you
truly stand. The vast majority of "pentesters" are just security
professionals running security tools; there's no creativity, no
innovation, no spark. Most are actually just kiddies, the next lot
falls above kiddies and below true crackers, then there's the real
elites -- those with 1) the cracker mentality, and 2) the cracker
skillsets. I'm in the upper part of level two I'd say, constantly
heading toward where I need to be. :)
It's interesting that you, Eric, don't call yourself a pentester
either. I do becasue it's my job, but I can't help but feel like the
eternal student with no rights to call myself anything. I use this
feeling to continue growing.
> Being a good cracker is about patience, knowledge, intuition,
> knowledge, experience,
> knowledge and most importantly, all of the above.
Amen, brother.
> FYI, FOUR semesters of Graduate Level network infrastructure,
> network design
> and "information warfare" classes didn't come close to covering all
> of this
> material.
Yes. This is what I'm talking about. It's like the most qualified
people have the lowest opinions of their skills. In short, we know
best how little we really do know.
> And I'm no pen-tester. I wouldn't even put my foot down to claim
> that I
> could be. I have 4 years experience in network design, down to
> writing bare
> C on raw Ethernet frames and up to designing a WAN topography and I
> wouldn't
> feel comfortable selling myself as a "pen-tester". In my opinion, the
> pen-tester has to be close to the elite of the crackers or their
> test does
> nothing.
Completely agreed. There's only one problem with your definition --
it only leaves a few hundred people worldwide. I'd submit that you
*can* have people below this uber-elite level offer something
tangible to clients. If you can perform a "pentest" for a client and
uncover deficiencies in their security which they then go on to fix,
you've performed a service that's worth paying for. Would it be
better if it were done by one of the true elites? Sure -- but that's
not to say that the former isn't valuable to some degree.
The problem is there are very few who are even capable of doing
*that* among those that call themselves pentesters. As discussed,
most people with the title are simply running tools. They're the CORE
IMPACT class. Point and click, point and click.
> If all you do is run some tools and see that the tools can't do any
> damage,
> you're a script-kiddie, not a pen-tester.
Yup.
> I occasionally refer to myself as a "security professional" but
> even that
> sometimes feels like a stretch.
Seriously...me too. I feel like being a student of the discipline and
a "professional" are almost mutually exclusive, and I'm *definitely*
the former. The thing you have to consider, though, is how you
compare to the other "professionals". :) Think of the benefit to the
client moreso than your own personal ranking. If I went by my own
personal standards, I wouldn't be in the field at all. I'd be huddled
up over my personal computer lab "getting ready" for the next 15 years.
> I would love to be an assistant with
> someone far more experienced than myself. I love learning. :-)
Same here, and thanks for the most excellent post.
Regards,
-- Daniel R. Miessler M: daniel@dmiessler.com W: http://dmiessler.com G: 0x316BC712
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:54:40 EDT