RE: Limited vs full blown testing

["Martin Murray-Brown" <Martin.Murray-Brown () derivco com>]

Heyas,

I would recommend preparing a standard document detailing the tests (not
a full test plan, something dumbed-down for the suits), and also
detailing the pro's and con's of both doing the test, and NOT doing the
test. That way the customer can make an informed decision as to what to
do and what not to do.

Then, if you make the possible consequences of NOT doing the test
sufficiently scary, the customer is more likely to agree to actually
doing a test.

Also, it makes you look even more professional... just slap in document
control and a fancy header :)

 - M

-----Original Message-----
From: Toby Barrick 

All,

During my many years of pen testing one common thread when dealing with 
customers has been the request to not perform any destructive or DOS 
type testing. When I speak of DOS, I'm not talking about DDOS, I'm 
talking just a single machine and the tests that can be accomplished 
with that machine. IMHO abiding by that request is really short changing

the customer and skewing the results. Additionally a lot of companies 
don't want their applications poked at either.

What has been the experience of the members on this list? Do you just 
gleefully accept the check and any limitations imposed on testing or do 
you push for a  "complete" suite of tests?

Thanks in advance!

T