WebApp Sec mailing list archives
RE: PCI DSS Compliance
From: "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:16:58 +1100
Read the document You have to verify the port - this is one section of the document. When you read all the requirements than judge. Craig -----Original Message----- From: Pete Herzog [mailto:lists () isecom org] Sent: 17 December 2005 6:51 To: syedma () microland net Cc: mjohnso6 () optonline net; 'Ademar Gonzalez'; webappsec () securityfocus com Subject: Re: PCI DSS Compliance Syed Mohamed A wrote:
Exactly.... I agree with Bill .. This is not penetration test .. The objective is to find ALL vulnerabilities inside ur environment.... This is something "Die safe" kind of setup.. Even if your IDS, Firewall, IPS go wrong... Your servers or application should stand
safe... And really how does identifying all known vulnerabilities alone make you safe? It's a scanner. It doesn't even verify for false positives and false negatives. Shouldn't the entire security of an organization be taken into consideration? I mean to assume that on 1 day the IDS, Firewall, and IPS go belly-up and the rest of your network is still humming sounds like better odds than a day that maybe just your web server goes down. Additionally, there are stateful firewalls that even if you white-list the tester's IPs, there will still be implemented syn flood protection which you can't disable. So do they also tell you that you have to run all your services on the expected, registered service ports too? Would I not be testable if my SSH is on port 33333? Why is my security dependent on my apps and services with possible vulnerabilities unverified by a scanner rather than the security and integrity of the system itself as a whole? I disagree. This is not even a vulnerability test if conducted in this manner. It's a scam and it's mostly worthless. It follows the myth of patching to be safe and it appears the tester doesn't want to waste their time actually testing and verifying other than an automated scanner. Nice "take the money and run" business! Sincerely, -pete. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists. DISCLAIMER The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disclose the information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may not rely on this message as advice unless it has been electronically signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by a Partner of BDO. BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
Current thread:
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance, (continued)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance Pete Herzog (Dec 18)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Lyal Collins (Dec 16)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance Peter Watkins (Dec 16)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Sebastien Deleersnyder (Dec 15)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Steve Kerns (Dec 15)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance Ademar Gonzalez (Dec 15)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Lyal Collins (Dec 16)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance Ademar Gonzalez (Dec 15)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Craig Wright (Dec 16)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Steven Jones (Dec 16)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance null0 (Dec 18)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Craig Wright (Dec 18)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance Pete Herzog (Dec 18)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Craig Wright (Dec 19)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance Pete Herzog (Dec 20)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Lyal Collins (Dec 20)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance Pete Herzog (Dec 29)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Lyal Collins (Dec 29)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance Pete Herzog (Dec 20)
- Re: PCI DSS Compliance Roberto Tanara (Dec 21)
- RE: PCI DSS Compliance Lyal Collins (Dec 21)