full-disclosure - Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: keydet89 at yahoo.com (Harlan Carvey)
Subject: Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners

> > Question: Should admins be using security
> scanners?
> 
> Someone should be.  Admins should be to confirm that
> their environment is in
> the state that they believe it to be.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  In my
experience, the guy who set a system up shouldn't be
the one to inspect it, or verify it.  

Also, I'm sort of thinking that if someone doesn't
know how to set up and maintain a system, what good is
it for that same person to run a scanner on it?

> Again, have new types of vulnerabilities been
> discovered, are there new best
> practices.  The reason Code Red hit so hard was
> because people didn't know
> about removing script mappings - it wasn't a common
> best practice.  It
> became one pretty quickly after Code Red.

Actually, the best practice of removing unnecessary
functionality has long been in place, well before Code
Red reared it's head.  The same is true with the best
practice of removing unnecessary script
mappings...this was documented by Microsoft and
available for free from their site well before Code
Red came out.

With regards to the rest of your comments, I think
you're missing the point.  I'm not saying that a
security scanner shouldn't be run...I just don't think
that admins should be the ones to run the scanner.