Penetration Testing mailing list archives
RE: Government Compliance
From: "Robert Hines" <b.hines () comcast net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:17:37 -0400
Dave, Pen testing is indeed just that a sanity check to verify that the overall security policy is compliant with management's/regulatory mandates. I tend to agree with you that password cracking is a whole new topic, however, pen testing IMHO can and should include man in the middle attack scenarios and appliance supervisory access as well. True this is not traditionally the port scan/fingerprinting perimeter stuff; nor is it the even the more advanced tunnel in and smash the stack or covert channel vulnerabilities, but having said this, being able to understand and perform man in the middle scenarios or appliance supervisory port crack, and thus gain a password, would be gold to a real or otherwise cracker want a be, particularly in the case of sensitive government information. I would also imagine that a strong two factor login would be required in your case ensuring that the user is whom they claim to be. Pen testing does not really belong in the socially sensitive arena of identity management, but it may in the future as more people turn up missing fingers. The bad guys do not follow any rules and the agreed upon rules and policies implemented should be able to evolve as the techniques, tools and motives of the bad guys become more devious/malicious and aloof. However, if this type of pen testing is required, it should, again in my opinion, be treated with an understanding of the methods, motives and a goal that may prevent an asset compromise. I believe pen testing just like policy should be approached in levels for specific goal and metric reasons, not just lumped together in a huge pen test policy pile. There is no 100%, if there were, there would be no risk, and without risk there is no business, but with the appropriate mitigation some of us may sleep better. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Dave [mailto:dave.anon () gmail com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:51 AM To: pen-test () securityfocus com Subject: Government Compliance Hello everyone. I know some will view this as a rant and other as informative, but I am making this post as a sanity check. For the purposes here, I currently work as an IT Security professional for the US government. I work at the Department of Government, within a component named AgencyX. Yes, these names are fictional. To give an outline or basic background, all government computer systems are governed by strict requirements for designing, implementing, maintaining, and securing them. Many of these are mandatory and are not up for negotiation. Some examples include NIST SP's, FISMA, DCID 6/3, etc..... OK....so I received and email from a "IT Security professional" (qualifications and knowledge very questionable) at the Department in response to a question I had. I had asked for the definition the Department was adopting for penetration testing. The response I received was (scrubbed for anonymity): "... The guidance for penetration testing was reviewed at [department committee] meeting... penetration testing shall consist of [product name deleted] vulnerability scans and running [product name deleted] for cracking passwords... if this has been done AgencyX shall get credit for penetration testing...." Ok, I have big problems with this. There are seperate and distinct requirements for maintaining password complexity, performing vuln scans, AND performing penetration testing. Any industry guideline or resource would never allow this "definition". Am I wrong? Am I over reacting? When I brought this up to my chain of command I was told "don't rock the boat". They fully admitted that they knew the definition to be incorrect in that it was not meeting the intent of the requirement, but that I should not say anything to rock the boat and just accept this. Obviously, for ethical reasons, I am leaving the agency and the department. Feedback? Thoughts? -- Dave
Current thread:
- Government Compliance Dave (Jun 16)
- Re: Government Compliance Kevin Lee (Jun 16)
- Re: Government Compliance David J. Bianco (Jun 16)
- Re: Government Compliance Diego Kellner (Jun 16)
- RE: Government Compliance Robert Hines (Jun 16)
- Re: Government Compliance Jay D. Dyson (Jun 16)
- Re: Government Compliance R. DuFresne (Jun 16)
- AW: Government Compliance Jörg Maaß (Jun 16)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Government Compliance Security Professional (Jun 16)
- RE: Government Compliance Kasyan, Walter A (Tony) (Jun 16)
- RE: Government Compliance Smith, Michael J. (Jun 16)
- Re: Government Compliance Tim Adams (Jun 16)
- RE: Government Compliance Keith T. Morgan (Jun 16)
- RE: Government Compliance Todd Towles (Jun 16)
- Re: Government Compliance frank_kenisky (Jun 16)
(Thread continues...)