Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: CEH training |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:49:27 +0200 |
Have to disagree with you here somewhat Richard. But I think your conciseness is your error. It's not better to run a tool on the OS it was designed on. It's best to run a tool designed on an OS with a platform and infrastructure that touches or manipulates the original packets the least. You can use windows to make a windows tool and run it on windows but it still won't run better than a tool which runs over a non-interfering OS, where the kernel does not try to translate information for you, no packet translation, packet inspection, or additional packet noise occurs in addition to the operating environment of the tool. Every layer of abstraction or interpretation between the request and the response, including those made by the tool itself, are layers where mistakes can be and will be made. The reason why tools under Windows may function less desirably than some other OSes is the layers introduced when making the tool, running the tool, making the request, receiving the response, and the packet noise made inheritently on networks where the OS resides. Windows is a user's OS for users with ease-of-use and administration being of primary functions. It is not the right tool for the job, for any job, that is not specifically testing the functioning of a windows environment from a Windows user/administrator perspective. Otherwise it's like reading one or two ad-soaked magazines about new security technology to make a decision on what kind of firewall you need for your network. It gives you info but you can only speculate on the accuracy and interpretation of that information. Sincerely, -pete. -- Pete Herzog - Managing Director - pete@isecom.org ISECOM - Institute for Security and Open Methodologies www.isecom.org - www.osstmm.org www.hackerhighschool.org - www.isestorm.org ------------------------------------------------------------------- ISECOM is the OSSTMM Professional Security Tester (OPST), OSSTMM Professional Security Analyst (OPSA), and Hacker Highschool Teacher certification authority. Richard Zaluski wrote:
Regarding "tools" and windows, most of the security tools that run on Windows are simply ported over from the *nix world. They run much better and often times allow much more flexibility in their use due to the way Windows and *nix operates and interacts with them. Its much better, in my opinion to run a tool on its native operating system. I have seen nmap for example running on MS 2000 professional completely lag behind the *nix version.
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: CEH training, xyberpix |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TFTP and XP_CMDSHELL - Weird, Jose Selvi |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: CEH training, D K |
| Next by Thread: | RE: CEH training, Richard Zaluski |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |