Message-Id: <20071220173043.9C9122283E@mailserver9.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:30:43 -0500
From: "SecReview" <secreview@...hmail.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,<kurtdillard@....com>
Subject: Re: [Professional IT Security Providers -Exposed]
	Cybertrust ( C + )

You obviously haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Our 
readers are customers that have used the service of the vendors 
before.  To date, they agree that our reviews have been accurate 
and very fair. 

In conjunction with that, our reviews are usually the product of 
analysis done against materials provided by the vendor, including 
sample reports. So, yes we do see the quality of their end 
deliverable, not for all but for many. 

 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:09:03 -0500 Kurt Dillard 
<kurtdillard@....com> wrote:
>Because its absurd to write a review for a service without 
>actually
>experiencing the service. The original poster's messages have only 
>had
>entertainment value, they've had no value from an information 
>security
>perspective. If you'd like to provide a link to your MSN profile 
>and
>facebook pages I'll write up a resume for you. Does that sound 
>like a good
>idea?
>
> 
>
>From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
>[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of 
>Epic
>Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:56 AM
>To: c0redump
>Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] [Professional IT Security Providers 
>-Exposed]
>Cybertrust ( C + )
>
> 
>
>Isn't ANY review subjective to opinion?    I do not understand the 
>basis of
>this flame.  It appears to me that a lot of the reviews on this 
>site offer
>some great insight into the companies being presented.   Granted 
>it is an
>opinion, but that is what a blog is isn't it? 
>
>On 12/20/07, c0redump <c0redump@...ers.org.uk> wrote: 
>
>Exactly.  Your 'grading' is based on your personal opinion.
>
>Do us all a favour and get a proper job. 
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "guiness.stout" <guinness.stout@...il.com>
>To: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk >
>Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:05 PM
>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] [Professional IT Security Providers 
>-Exposed]
>Cybertrust ( C + )
>
>
>> I'm not really clear on how you are grading these companies.  
>I've had 
>> no personal experience with them but I don't decide a companies
>> quality of work simply by their website and what information I 
>get
>> from some customer support person.  These "grades" seem 
>pointless and 
>> frankly unfounded.  You should reword your grading system to 
>specify
>> the ease of use of their websites and not the service they 
>provide.
>> Especially if you haven't ordered any services from them.  I'm 
>not 
>> defending anyone here just pointing out some flaws in this 
>"grading."
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2007 12:11 AM, secreview <secreview@...hmail.com> 
>wrote: 
>>> One of our readers made a request that we review Cybertrust
>>> ("http://www.cybertrust.com"). Cybertrust was recently acquired 
>by
>>> Verizon 
>>> and as a result this review was a bit more complicated and 
>required a lot
>>> more digging to complete (In fact its now Cybertrust and 
>Netsec). Never
>>> the
>>> less, we managed to dig information specific to Cybertrust out 
>of Verizon
>
>>> representatives. We would tell you that we used the website for
>>> information
>>> collection, but in all reality the website was useless. Not 
>only was it
>>> horribly written and full of marketing fluff, but the services 
>were not 
>>> clearly defined.
>>>
>>> As an example, when you view the Cybertrust services in their 
>drop down
>>> menu
>>> you are presented with the following service offerings: 
>Application 
>>> Security, Assessments, Certification, Compliance/Governance, 
>Consulting,
>>> Enterprise Security, Identity Management Investigative Response
>>> /Forensics,
>>> Managed Security Services, Partner Security Program Security 
>Management 
>>> Program, and SSL Certificates. The first thing you think is 
>"what the
>>> hell?"
>>> the second is "ok so they offer 12 services".
>>>
>>> Well as you dig into each service you quickly find out that 
>they do not 
>>> offer 12 services, but instead they have 12 links to 12 
>different pages
>>> full
>>> of marketing fluff. As you read each of the pages in an attempt 
>to wrap
>>> your
>>> mind around what they are offering as individually packaged 
>services 
>>> you're
>>> left with more questions than answers. So again, what the hell?
>>>
>>> Here's an example. Their "Application Security" service page 
>does not
>>> contain a description about a Web Application Security service. 
>In fact, 
>>> it
>>> doesn't even contain a description about a System 
>Software/Application
>>> security service. Instead it contains a super high level, super 
>vague and
>>> fluffy description that covers a really general idea of 
>"Application" 
>>> security services. When you really read into it you find out 
>that their
>>> Application Security service should be broken down into 
>multiple
>>> different
>>> defined service offerings. 
>>>
>>> Even more frustrating is that their Application Security 
>service is a
>>> consulting service and that they have a separate service 
>offering called
>>> Consulting. When you read the description for Consulting, it is 
>also 
>>> vague
>>> and mostly useless, but does cover the "potential" for 
>Application
>>> Security.
>>>
>>> So, trying to learn anything about Cybertrust from their web 
>page is like
>
>>> trying to pull teeth out of a possessed chicken. We decided 
>that we would
>>> move on and call Cybertrust to see what we could get out of 
>them with a
>>> conversation. That proved to be a real pain in the ass too as 
>their 
>>> website
>>> doesn't list any telephone numbers. We ended up calling verizon 
>and after
>>> talking to 4 people we finally found a Cybertrust 
>representative.
>>>
>>> At last, a human being that could provide us with useful 
>information and 
>>> answers to our questions about their services. We did receive 
>about 2mb
>>> of
>>> materials from our contact at Cybertrust, but the materials 
>were all
>>> marketing fluff, totally useless. That being said, our 
>conversation with 
>>> the
>>> representative gave us a very clear understanding of how 
>Cybertrust
>>> delivers
>>> there services. In all honesty, we were not all that impressed.
>>>
>>> Cybertrust does perform their own Vulnerability Research and 
>Development 
>>> (or
>>> so we were told) under the umbrella of ICSAlabs which they own. 
>Usually
>>> we'd
>>> say that this is great because that research is often used to 
>augment
>>> services and enhance overall service quality. With respect to 
>Cybertrust,
>
>>> we
>>> couldn't find out what they were doing with their research. 
>They just
>>> told
>>> us that they don't release advisories and then refused to tell 
>us what
>>> they 
>>> did with the research.
>>>
>>> When we asked them about their services and testing 
>methodologies, we
>>> were
>>> first told that they couldn't discuss that. We were told that 
>their 
>>> methodologies were confidential. But after a bit of Social 
>Engineering
>>> and
>>> sweet talking we were able to get more information...
>>>
>>> As it turns out, the majority of the Cybertrust services rely 
>on what 
>>> they
>>> say are proprietary automated scanners which were developed in-
>house.
>>> Their
>>> methodology is to run the automated scanners against a specific 
>target or
>>> set of targets, and then to pass the results to a seasoned 
>professional. 
>>> That professional then verifies the results via manual testing 
>and
>>> produces
>>> a report that contains the vetted results.
>>>
>>> This methodology doesn't really offer any depth and doesn't do 
>much to 
>>> raise
>>> the proverbial security bar. In fact, it is only slightly 
>better than
>>> running a Qualys scan, changing the wording of the report, and 
>delivering
>>> that. Quality methodologies should contain no more than 20% 
>automated 
>>> testing and no less than 80% manual testing. Vulnerability 
>discovery
>>> should
>>> be done via manual testing, not just via automated testing.
>>>
>>> In defense of Cybertrust, they did say that they would test in 
>accordance
>
>>> with the customers requirements. They also did say that if the 
>customer
>>> wanted 100% manual testing that they would do it. If they want 
>100%
>>> automated "rubber stamp of approval" testing they would do that 
>too. 
>>> Saying
>>> it is a lot different than doing it though and we weren't 
>impressed with
>>> their standard/default testing methodology as previously 
>mentioned.
>>>
>>> It is important to note that Cybertrust is also a full service 
>security 
>>> provider. They offer a wide range of services from supporting 
>secure
>>> product
>>> development services, to security testing, and even forensic 
>services.
>>> With
>>> that said, their services do not seem to be anything special. 
>In fact, 
>>> they
>>> seem to be just about average short of their horrible website 
>and
>>> overwhelming marketing fluff.
>>>
>>> It is our recommendation that you choose a different provider 
>if you are 
>>> looking for well defined, high quality services. Cybertrust is 
>cloaked in
>>> a
>>> thick layer of marketing fluff and frankly doesn't seem to be 
>very easy
>>> to
>>> work with. That being said, they were also not easy to review. 
>If you 
>>> disagree with this post or have worked with Cybertrust in the 
>past, then
>>> please leave us a comment. We're going to give Cybertrust a "C" 
>but if
>>> you
>>> can convince us that they deserve a different grade then we'll 
>revise our
>
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading.
>>>
>>> --
>>>  Posted By secreview to Professional IT Security Providers - 
>Exposed at
>>> 12/19/2007 07:32:00 PM
>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________ 
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Regards, 
      The Secreview Team
      http://secreview.blogspot.com
      Professional IT Security Service Providers - Exposed

--
Save big on a huge selection of discount auto parts. Click now!
http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4eju22eWmoaCiKwN45shQSnKTlUNjpqaB5BdhTWjvQUzgFfS/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists