Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:05:36 -0500
From: guiness.stout <guinness.stout@...il.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists