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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200404281940.35787.jeremiah@nur.net>
From: jeremiah at nur.net (Jeremiah Cornelius)
Subject: Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scan ners

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 28 April 2004 14:25, Stuart Fox (DSL AK) wrote:
> And some more things for you to think about
>
> > Just some things to think about...
> >
> > > Top 15 Reasons Why Admins Use Security Scanners
> >
> > 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.

Yes!

I look at software development for an analogy.
Just because developers should not be tasked with maintaining metrics and 
configurations for validating QA targets, it does not follow that they 
shouldn't 'smoke-test' or perform individual unit checks against the derived 
objects of code they are about to commit.  It would be irresponsible /not/ to 
check...

But having done so, development is not entitled to the claim that the code is 
defect free, and meets all requirements.  The independent validation and 
measurement is still requisite.  So Admins can claim "due care" - without 
asserting policy compliance or eliminating audit requirements. 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAkGsiJi2cv3XsiSARAuR+AKDMbGGSFsbovcoSijaJjmRp4EVnHACgkOwT
qRyyjk6MfJwirJlESookl90=
=qf2F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----