 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sister CISA CISSP &#187; Pentesting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/cisa-cissp/tag/pentesting/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/cisa-cissp</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:25:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Scans and Pentests and Audits, Oh My!</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/cisa-cissp/scans-and-pentests-and-audits-oh-my/</link>
		<comments>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/cisa-cissp/scans-and-pentests-and-audits-oh-my/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Arian Eigen Heald</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pentesting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tools & Tricks of the Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vulnerability Assessments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/cisa-cissp/?p=281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why isn&#8217;t a vulnerability scan part of a penetration test? A scan looks for vulnerabilities the way hackers do &#8211; but hackers are MUCH better at it. Scans look for what they are programmed to look for &#8211; hackers look for holes. Penetration testing certainly involves scanning, but most professional pentesters don&#8217;t waste time with [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why isn&#8217;t a vulnerability scan part of a penetration test? A scan looks for vulnerabilities the way hackers do &#8211; but hackers are MUCH better at it.  Scans look for what they are programmed to look for &#8211; hackers look for holes.</p>
<p>Penetration testing certainly involves scanning, but most professional pentesters don&#8217;t waste time with scanners.  They&#8217;re nice to have if you have a lot of money and only a little time to check your security. But the guy who gets in doesn&#8217;t usually have one in his kit.  Scanning software tends to be huge (think database on the backend) and cumbersome. </p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong; there are some terrific pieces of software out there that can and should be used on a regular basis.  They can catch the misconfigured server and identify the &#8220;low hanging fruit&#8221; that needs to be cleaned up. They are a part of a security audit, and VERY handy to have.  I&#8217;d like to have a few in MY toolkit.</p>
<p>Do I use them for pentesting?  No.</p>
<p>The first two or three steps in a penetration test have nothing to do with scanning the network for vulnerabilities, and often are far more effective than a scan will ever be.  The nice man who lets me in the door does far more for me than a scan&#8230;.why do a whole bunch of scanning when I can access the server physically? Ten minutes (or less) with your server and it&#8217;s MINE.</p>
<p>Of course, because I&#8217;m an auditor, and the First Rule is usually:  &#8220;Don&#8217;t break anything,&#8221; I settle for leaving my business card on the back of the chassis or a little file in the root directory.  But a thumb drive with some fun software can capture the SAM database pretty quickly and erase traces of itself pretty fast. </p>
<p>So don&#8217;t let anyone call a scan a pentest &#8211; it just means they don&#8217;t know their business.</p>
<!-- wpms-network-global-inserts -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/cisa-cissp/scans-and-pentests-and-audits-oh-my/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
