Vulnerabilities / Threats
5/23/2013
05:00 PM
Vincent Liu
Vincent Liu
Commentary
50%
50%

Beware Of The 'Checklist' Penetration Tester

A surefire way to spot a novice

Part 2 in a series on spotting a novice pen tester

If your penetration tester has an overreliance on checklists, then he or she is a novice. In the hands of a novice tester, checklists are treated as both the start and the end of a test.

In the eyes of a skilled tester, a checklist defines the minimum level of testing. A common mistake made when evaluating third-party firms is to place too much weight on checklist comparisons. Sure, it's easy to compare lists, but it often leads to the omission and exclusion of much more important attributes, such as whether they can actually hack.

Consider this: You aren't feeling well, so you go to see the doctor. Your doctor follows a top 10 checklist to try and diagnose your symptoms, but none of the symptoms matched. So you're sent home with a clean bill of health because none of your problems were on the top 10 checklist. You're probably thinking that this doctor should have his medical license reviewed, but this is how many novice pen testers go about performing their assessments -- by adhering strictly to a checklist.

If you notice that the only issues being identified are the ones commonly found on a top 10 (e.g., OWASP Top 10) list, then there's a chance that those are the only ones that are being tested. Going off of a checklist can garner only so many results or findings, and oftentimes validating a finding is confused with actually performing a penetration test -- and it really is not the same. It's important to note that checklists can be helpful, but checklist-driven testing should not be the end-all, be-all when it comes to penetration testing because you can't find what you're not looking for.

It's good to ask your tester what he attempted to look for but didn't find. If you're still suspicious, then ask for evidence. A similar question to ask is: What aspects of security were strong? Carefully listen to his response because the answer should not be a statement of what you don't have (e.g., you didn't have SQL injection), but instead a statement of you do have (e.g., your input validation system is effective at stopping input-based attacks).

Part one of this series is here.

Vincent Liu (CISSP) is a Managing Partner at Stach & Liu, a security consulting firm providing services to the Fortune 500, global financial institutions, and high-tech startups. In this role, he oversees firm strategy, practice development, and client matters. Vincent is ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-4403
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Zen Cart 1.3.9h allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) delete a product via a delete_product_confirm action to product.php or (2) disable a product via a setflag action to categories.ph...

CVE-2012-2930
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in TinyWebGallery (TWG) before 1.8.8 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add a user via an adduser action to admin/index.php or (2) conduct static PHP code injection attacks in .htusers...

CVE-2012-2932
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in TinyWebGallery (TWG) before 1.8.8 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) selitems[] parameter in a copy, (2) chmod, or (3) arch action to admin/index.php or (4) searchitem parameter in a search action to admin/...

CVE-2012-5451
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in HttpUtils.dll in TVMOBiLi before 2.1.0.3974 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (tvMobiliService service crash) via a long string in a (1) GET or (2) HEAD request to TCP port 30888.

CVE-2015-0297
Published: 2015-04-24
Red Hat JBoss Operations Network 3.3.1 does not properly restrict access to certain APIs, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Java methos via the (1) ServerInvokerServlet or (2) SchedulerService or (3) cause a denial of service (disk consumption) via the ContentManager.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join security and risk expert John Pironti and Dark Reading Editor-in-Chief Tim Wilson for a live online discussion of the sea-changing shift in security strategy and the many ways it is affecting IT and business.