full-disclosure - Re: iiscan results

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: <828ffeab1001101252n690580ffqafac5509fe474021@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:52:58 -0500
From: jack mannino <jack.a.mannino@...il.com>
To: dd@...uri.net
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: iiscan results - a closer look

Have you ever performed the same analysis of the tests the paid scanning
products perform?  I think you would be amazed at the similarities in their
general lack of intelligence and poor ability to make decisions based on
context and/or environment.

Also, what do you consider "good" about the checks it performed?  Very basic
' or 1 =1 stuff, with basic URL encoding at the "high end" of the test
cases.

<rant>

I'd argue that any organization without an application security program that
would use IIScan or a similar solution is actually LESS secure if they don't
understand that a simple scan isn't the same as having an actual approach.
Finding a few simple holes and fixing them doesn't constitute improving your
security posture, at all.

</rant>

-Jack

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:42 PM, <dd@...uri.net> wrote:

> I played with it a little yesterday and posted my thoughts (as well as
> a summary of their whole scan) at:
>
> http://blog.sucuri.net/2010/01/closer-look-at-iiscan.html
>
> It is a nice tool with some good checks looking for SQL, XSS, etc... I
> just think they
> didn't look deep enough in my site to check more stuff...
>
>
> --dd
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Robin Sage <robin.sage@...ketmail.com>
> wrote:
> > If anyone has any more invite codes please send one to me.
> > I tried the ones posted and they were not functional.
> > I also emailed support and never received a response.
> >
> > Has anyone compared this to AppScan, WebInspect, Sentinnel, Qualys or
> > Acunetix ?
> > How many trials do you get per invite code? Just 1 app?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@...il.com>
> > To: p8x <l@....net>
> > Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> > Sent: Thu, January 7, 2010 9:33:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] iiscan results
> >
> > It's probably trying to get different results/responses by changing
> > the values of some request headers. The most common scenario, as far
> > as I've seen, and as oddly as it might sound, is the User-Agent and
> > HTTP minor version.
> >
> > A more verbose logging strategy would demystify. Or maybe Vincent?
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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