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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

5/23/2013
05:00 PM
Vincent Liu
Vincent Liu
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
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 Partner at Bishop Fox, a cyber security consulting firm providing services to the Fortune 500, global financial institutions, and high-tech startups. In this role, he oversees firm management, client matters, and strategy consulting. Vincent is a ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
US Sets $5 Million Bounty For Russian Hacker Behind Zeus Banking Thefts
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  12/5/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Our Endpoint Protection system is a little outdated... 
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19604
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-11
Arbitrary command execution is possible in Git before 2.20.2, 2.21.x before 2.21.1, 2.22.x before 2.22.2, 2.23.x before 2.23.1, and 2.24.x before 2.24.1 because a "git submodule update" operation can run commands found in the .gitmodules file of a malicious repository.
CVE-2019-14861
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the (poorly named) dnsserver RPC pipe provides administrative facilities to modify DNS records and zones. Samba, when acting as an AD DC, stores DNS records in LDAP. In AD, the default permiss...
CVE-2019-14870
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the S4U (MS-SFU) Kerberos delegation model includes a feature allowing for a subset of clients to be opted out of constrained delegation in any way, either S4U2Self or regular Kerberos authent...
CVE-2019-14889
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A flaw was found with the libssh API function ssh_scp_new() in versions before 0.9.3 and before 0.8.8. When the libssh SCP client connects to a server, the scp command, which includes a user-provided path, is executed on the server-side. In case the library is used in a way where users can influence...
CVE-2019-1484
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A remote code execution vulnerability exists when Microsoft Windows OLE fails to properly validate user input, aka 'Windows OLE Remote Code Execution Vulnerability'.