Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

11/19/2008
04:33 PM
John H. Sawyer
John H. Sawyer
Commentary
50%
50%

Internal vs. External Penetration Testing

In the past, I've talked about the merits of penetration testing (a.k.a. pen-testing) and several related tools. One thing I've not covered much is the difference between internal and external pen-testing. Today's Webcast, "Zen and the Art of Maintaining an Internal Penetration Testing Program," by Paul Asadoorian of PaulDotCom (which has a great weekly security podcast) is what started me thin

In the past, I've talked about the merits of penetration testing (a.k.a. pen-testing) and several related tools. One thing I've not covered much is the difference between internal and external pen-testing. Today's Webcast, "Zen and the Art of Maintaining an Internal Penetration Testing Program," by Paul Asadoorian of PaulDotCom (which has a great weekly security podcast) is what started me thinking about the differences between the two.External pen-testing is the traditional, more common approach to pen-testing. It addresses the ability of a remote attacker to get to the internal network. The goal of the pen-test is to access specific servers and crown jewels within the internal network by exploiting externally exposed servers, clients, and people. Whether it's an exploit against a vulnerable Web application or tricking a user into giving you his password over the phone, allowing access to the VPN, the end game is getting from the outside to the inside.

Internal pen-testing takes a different approach -- one that simulates what an insider attack could accomplish. The target is typically the same as external pen-testing, but the major differentiator is the "attacker" either has some sort of authorized access or is starting from a point within the internal network. Insider attacks have the potential of being much more devastating than an external attack because insiders already have the knowledge of what's important within a network and where it's located, something that external attackers don't usually know from the start.

In addition to Paul's Webcast, the other item that put me into an attack mindset was this morning's release of Metasploit Framework 3.2. The latest version includes a slew of new exploits and features for handling packet injection and capture, additions for speeding up exploit development, automatic exploitation of Web browsers using the included client-side attacks, and more. Metasploit is an incredibly full-featured pen-testing tool that should be included in every security professional's toolkit. Definitely take a look at Paul's Webcast; he has a lot of great real-world examples of using tools for conducting an internal pen-test.

John H. Sawyer is a Senior Security Engineer on the IT Security Team at the University of Florida. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are his own and do not represent the views and opinions of the UF IT Security Team or the University of Florida. When John's not fighting flaming, malware-infested machines or performing autopsies on blitzed boxes, he can usually be found hanging with his family, bouncing a baby on one knee and balancing a laptop on the other. Special to Dark Reading.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-3154
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
CRLF injection vulnerability in Zend\Mail (Zend_Mail) in Zend Framework before 1.12.12, 2.x before 2.3.8, and 2.4.x before 2.4.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks via CRLF sequences in the header of an email.
CVE-2019-17190
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
A Local Privilege Escalation issue was discovered in Avast Secure Browser 76.0.1659.101. The vulnerability is due to an insecure ACL set by the AvastBrowserUpdate.exe (which is running as NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM) when AvastSecureBrowser.exe checks for new updates. When the update check is triggered, the...
CVE-2014-8161
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
PostgreSQL before 9.0.19, 9.1.x before 9.1.15, 9.2.x before 9.2.10, 9.3.x before 9.3.6, and 9.4.x before 9.4.1 allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive column values by triggering constraint violation and then reading the error message.
CVE-2014-9481
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
The Scribunto extension for MediaWiki allows remote attackers to obtain the rollback token and possibly other sensitive information via a crafted module, related to unstripping special page HTML.
CVE-2015-0241
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
The to_char function in PostgreSQL before 9.0.19, 9.1.x before 9.1.15, 9.2.x before 9.2.10, 9.3.x before 9.3.6, and 9.4.x before 9.4.1 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a (1) large number of digits when processing a numeric ...