Analytics

9/19/2018
09:40 AM
50%
50%

8 Keys to a Successful Penetration Test

Pen tests are expensive, but there are key factors that can make them worth the investment.
Previous
1 of 9
Next

(Image: AntonKarlik)

(Image: AntonKarlik)

In 1880, Prussian Field Marshal and military theorist Helmuth von Moltke the Elder wrote what can be translated in English as, "No plan of operations reaches with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main force." He meant that all plans are great until they run into reality.

That statement resonates today in cybersecurity. Many security professionals vet their security plans with reality via a penetration test, aka pen test, where a red team of white-hat hackers does their best to defeat the defenses established by the blue team of security. It is frequently an eye-opening experience for the blue team and their managers.

While virtually every security plan for an organization of any size calls for pen testing, these exercises tend to be expensive and frequently disruptive. It pays to make them as effective as possible. So what's the difference between a costly pen test that puts a tick in a check box versus one that's a legitimate tool for improving security?

Putting in the work to properly prepare for a pen test can lead to solid security benefits for the organization. More than half of the steps to a solid pen test occur prior to when the testing begins. That's not terribly unusual - aphorisms about practice, planning, and perfection are common - but it reinforces the idea that pen testing is not the sort of activity that can be taken lightly. And if it's going to be most effective for the organization, it can't be taken as an activity just for the sake of making auditors, regulators, or insurers happy.

The following steps for a successful pen test were gathered from personal experience, conversations with professionals including Tod Beardsley, director of research with Rapid7, Yonathan Klijnsma threat researcher at RiskIQ, and Stephen Boyer, founder and CTO of Bitsight Technologies, as well as numerous discussions with researchers at Black Hat USA and DEF CON 2018.

Have you been part of a pen test that has been highly valuable - or not? What steps did you find critical to making the pen test matter? Let us know in the comments section below.



 

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 9
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Crowdsourced vs. Traditional Pen Testing
Alex Haynes, Chief Information Security Officer, CDL,  3/19/2019
BEC Scammer Pleads Guilty
Dark Reading Staff 3/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Well, at least it isn't Mobby Dick!
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
Organizations are responding to new threats with new processes for detecting and mitigating them. Here's a look at how the discipline of incident response is evolving.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-3965
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
Hospira Symbiq Infusion System 3.13 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to trigger "unanticipated operations" by leveraging "elevated privileges" for an unspecified call to an incorrectly exposed function.
CVE-2016-10743
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
hostapd before 2.6 does not prevent use of the low-quality PRNG that is reached by an os_random() function call.
CVE-2019-9947
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
An issue was discovered in urllib2 in Python 2.x through 2.7.16 and urllib in Python 3.x through 3.7.2. CRLF injection is possible if the attacker controls a url parameter, as demonstrated by the first argument to urllib.request.urlopen with \r\n (specifically in the query string or PATH_INFO) follo...
CVE-2019-9948
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
urllib in Python 2.x through 2.7.16 supports the local_file: scheme, which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass protection mechanisms that blacklist file: URIs, as demonstrated by triggering a urllib.urlopen('local_file:///etc/passwd') call.
CVE-2019-9945
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
SoftNAS Cloud 4.2.0 and 4.2.1 allows remote command execution. The NGINX default configuration file has a check to verify the status of a user cookie. If not set, a user is redirected to the login page. An arbitrary value can be provided for this cookie to access the web interface without valid user...