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: vulnerability scanners not effective? or just a false-positive? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:31:27 -0600 |
On 3/29/06, Joel Jose <joeljose420@bonbon.net> wrote:
But i think it is a very "huge" vulnerability. and nessus didnt even give a hinch!!
Well, Nessus is primarily focused on operating system vulnerabilities and problems with common services. I'm not sure how you're "accessing" the directories -- if it's via Windows sharing, you have multiple problems here that should be addressed immediately. If it's via some web application, then it's not surprising Nessus didn't pick it up, though you still have things the client should fix.
and one more quest. How many of you think that the existance of the default banners in services(eg apache default error pages) are a security threat, if not high, atleast medium?. I do.
First of all, such existence is a *vulnerability*, not a *threat*. Lots of people frequently misuse these terms and we should be clear in our terminology. Second, the proper way to do this is to define criteria for each severity level. For example you might say that "high" vulnerabilities allow code execution or access to restricted data, "medium" vulnerabilities violate best practices but don't necessarily allow code execution or data loss, and "low" vulnerabilities provide configuration information that shouldn't be disclosed but isn't a protected secret like a password. Those criteria should typically be more specific and take into account the overall risk environment of the client organization (industry, company policy, etc.) But in the general sense... I never classify default banners as a high vulnerability as it seems kind of "Chicken Little" to me. I recommend they be turned off (or changed to something else if the client is a little twisted) but it would be incorrect to give your client a false impression of the risk stemming from that decision. -- Kyle Maxwell http://caffeinatedsecurity.com [krmaxwell@gmail.com] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This List Sponsored by: Cenzic Concerned about Web Application Security? As attacks through web applications continue to rise, you need to proactively protect your applications from hackers. Cenzic has the most comprehensive solutions to meet your application security penetration testing and vulnerability management needs. You have an option to go with a managed service (Cenzic ClickToSecure) or an enterprise software (Cenzic Hailstorm). Download FREE whitepaper on how a managed service can help you: http://www.cenzic.com/forms/ec.php?pubid=10025 And, now for a limited time we can do a FREE audit for you to confirm your results from other product. Contact us at request@cenzic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | About AsyncOS from IronPort, carlopmart |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Wireless Audit Reports, Hayes, Ian |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: vulnerability scanners not effective? or just a false-positive?, Pete Herzog |
| Next by Thread: | RE: vulnerability scanners not effective? or just a false-positive?, David Ball |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |