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: Scanning--more then one side to the argument |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:57:33 +0100 |
There has been a on going discussion about the scanning results on our customers.
Thought one says that "any" port on a standard nmap, showing as "open" is a security risk.
Thought two says, no since some things need to show in a state of open.
Should we be stating that through proactive scan, when we find any port showing as open, that it is a security issue waiting to happen?
Or only if we can show a issue?
Thoughts?
Shand
Anything being "open" is a *potential* security issue. If you have a service running there is the *potential* for it to have bugs. This is contrasted with *actual* security issues where the port is open and the listening service has a vulnerability. Example: If I run a public web server I would open a port, this has the *potential* for security issues to occur, but as long as the service isn't vulnerable there is no *actual* security issue.
Opening up running services does increase avenues of attack, increases risk and is why we only run services that are necessary.
Is it a security issue waiting to happen? Yes absolutely, it can and most likely will become a security issue.
This however is defining "security issue" as a definite attack vector. You could also define "security issue" as "something we need to consider in our security policy".
What exactly is the significance of the question? and in what context do you have "security issue"
-- With Regards.. Barrie Dempster (zeedo) - Fortiter et Strenue
blog: http://zeedo.blogspot.com site: http://www.bsrf.org.uk CA: www.cacert.org
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Scanning--more then one side to the argument, Shand |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Win32 Firewalls., Price, Robert H |
| Previous by Thread: | Scanning--more then one side to the argument, Sherman Hand |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Scanning--more then one side to the argument, Steve Fletcher |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |