full-disclosure - Comparison of Network Security Scanners

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]

Message-ID: <40E571A5.2030309@ameritech.net>
From: insecure at ameritech.net (insecure)
Subject: Comparison of Network Security Scanners

Not only is the test not indenpendent, it is extremely out of date (more 
than a year old). Several of the programs in the comparison have had 
major updates since then, while the "winner" of this comparison has not. 
This could easily have a significant effect on the outcome of a similar 
comparison, if done today. Also, cost effectiveness of the product would 
have to be a major consideration in any real-world comparison, yet is 
totally overlooked.

These kinds of comparisons are always of questionable value. What is 
best in one environment may not work at all in another. For most small 
to medium sized organizations, the costly commercial alternatives would 
not provide a significant benefit over the low-cost or free systems such 
as nessus and LanGuard (3.3 is free for scanning unlimited IP's, it only 
costs if you want software/patch deployment and custom reporting).

Jerry

Alexander wrote:

>Hi!
>
>Certainly, this test is not independent. However, methodology of the
>tests is completely described, and everyone can check up them. I did not
>see any other similar tests comparing various vulnerability scanners.
>
>
>
>  
>