Assessing Network Security 89
| Assessing Network Security | |
| author | Ben Smith, David LeBlanc, Kevin Lam |
| pages | 592 |
| publisher | Microsoft Press |
| rating | 8/10 |
| reviewer | Anton Chuvakin |
| ISBN | 0735620334 |
| summary | Great pentesting book |
Assessing Network Security starts with a nice overview of key principles of security (definitely not news for industry practitioners, but nice anyway), and then goes on to defines vulnerability assessment, penetration testing and security audit. A critically important section on reporting the findings is also nicely written, and shows that the authors are knowledgeable, and interested in showing a complete security process rather than just the looking-for-leaks part.
The authors then go into developing and maintaining pentesting skills, including advice on choosing training and resources (nice for those starting in the field). The actual pentesting process is split into non-intrusive (combining the usual "intelligence gathering" with port scans, sweeps and various host queries) and intrusive tests (such as running a vulnerability scanner, brute-forcing passwords, DoS testing and others). Some entries seem to belong in both categories (such as sniffing) but are placed into the intrusive section, for whatever reason. Up-to-date content (wireless, Bluetooth and web assessment, for instance) is well represented.
The authors also include a fairly insightful social engineering testing section (touching on dumpster diving and other non-network assessment methods). My favorite chapter was the one presenting various case studies - examples of specific threats/tests against Web, email, VPN and domain controller systems.
Among other features that I liked in Assessing Network Security were 'notes from the field' sidebars with fun stories related by authors, and FAQs at the end of each section. On the down side, the book is somewhat Windows-focused (although it is amazingly vendor-neutral in most respects, considering the source). The book is also somewhat dry, although the sidebars provide some needed relief when the text gets too process-oriented at times.
Assessing Network Security is largely about methodology, but I'd have preferred to see a bit more technical content, since it is a 600-page volume. I think the checklists present in the Appendix are a great step in that direction.
Overall, I enjoyed the book and think it is both a great guide and a reference for most security professionals, especially for those starting to be involved with penetration testing.
Anton Chuvakin, Ph.D., GCIA, GCIH is a Security Strategist with a security information management company and maintains the security portal info-secure.org. He wrote Security Warrior and contributed to Know Your Enemy, 2nd Edition . You can purchase Assessing Network Security from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews. To see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
FP - obilgatory NS at redmund? (Score:3, Funny)
Nice amazon referrer link, (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a whore free link [amazon.com] and some healthy capitalist competition to boot [pcprotection.ca].
What about... (Score:5, Funny)
What about Kama Sutra?
Seriously though, this book is written by three Microsoft security researchers, I guess that said enough.
Is this a case of do as we say, not as we do.
Re:What about... Linux code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. You consider the security researchers incompetent because they are (or were) part of the Microsoft team?
So, because some Linux kernel coders make mistakes which lead to 'r00t3d' boxes, all Linux kernel coders are incompetent?
I think you're thinking a little bit simplistic here.
Re:What about... Linux code? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I think he's being a lot simplistic here, but that's just part of the larger mindset of Slashdot. "Linux GOOD! Microsoft BAD!" It's become the sheep's favorite thing to say during intense meetings on this Animal Farm we call Slashdot. You can lead a zealot to the truth, but you cannot make him think.
Re:What about... Linux code? (Score:4, Interesting)
The story of The Man in the Tinfoil Hat [trilobyte-mag.com] is a poignant one here... The relevant quote is (emphasis mine)...
As the author of that article puts it further down:
"If MS (and all its staff) is not evil and incompetent, then the zealots are crazy."
I am a Linux user and advocate, but I still find these assertions silly...
Re:What about... Linux code? (Score:2)
I suppose the point is that no-one will ever say 'Yes' - logic alone will not convince a lunatic or a zealot (even if you are the lunatic or the zealot).
The key points are:
1. You will always believe that you are not the lunatic.
2. When you identify someone who you believe is a lunatic, asking them if they are is fruitless - they will say 'No'.
3. When you attempt to educate them with logic (regardless of whether you are sane, and the logic is fine, or you are a lunatic and the logic
Re:What about... Linux code? (Score:2)
"Researchers" (Score:3, Interesting)
Giving credit where credit is due, Microsoft has put together an awesome team of researchers in many areas, including security. The list of people who work for MSR is a who's who of CS. The problem is that these guys ain't them. They might have a lot of practical knowledge about how to make Windows secure (and practical knowledge is often the best kind...) but I'm not sure I'd call them researchers
Re:What about... (Score:2, Informative)
One of the first security books I read (1985 - 19.5 years ago) is Microsoft Press:
"Out of the Inner Circle" by Bill Landreth
( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/091 4 845365/qid=1099435817/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-306444 7-0498204?v=glance&s=books )
It's still definitive at cataloging the diffeent ""hacker"" personalities and motives.
Re:What about... (Score:1)
One of the first security books I read (1985 - 19.5 years ago) is Microsoft Press:
"Out of the Inner Circle" by Bill Landreth
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0914 845365/qid=1099435817/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-306444 7-0498204?v=glance&s=books [amazon.com]
It's still definitive at cataluging the diffeent ""hacker"" personalities and motives.
Considering the source ... (Score:1)
from the Internet!
How can that sentence possibly be finessed
into something as big as a book?
Re:What about... (Score:2)
They're in the business of selling references...biased references are good for almost nothing.
Now, if they'd only... (Score:3, Funny)
Karma be damned... (Score:5, Funny)
"I've read some pretty bad books on penetration testing [...] Assessing Network Security comes to us direct from the bunkers of Redmond."
Nah, too easy.
"Microsoft security" (Score:5, Funny)
remember now (Score:5, Funny)
remember guys, often times computers are like women.
this is not one of them
Re:remember now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oxymoron (Score:1)
@microsoft.com (Score:4, Informative)
Ben Smith [winnetmag.com],
David LeBlanc [winnetmag.com]
Windows (Score:2)
Why am I not surprised? :)
Re:Windows (Score:1, Insightful)
Not to be an ass, but so are most computers.
Re:Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Windows (Score:2)
A book on security from microsoft... ? (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't that be sort of like George Bush writing an english book?
Re:A book on security from microsoft... ? (Score:1)
Re:A book on security from microsoft... ? (Score:2)
'somewhat dry' (Score:5, Insightful)
I never got more than a quarter of the way through that, i fell asleep every time i tried to pick it up.
i saw internal MS OLE training i saw Kraig Brockshmit did back in about 95 - jesus it was boring. we are talking boredom in an entirely new area of bordem till then undiscovered by man
Re:'somewhat dry' (Score:1)
I almost feel bad for whoever ended up with it when I traded it in at the used book store.
Re:'somewhat dry' (Score:1)
Pretzel, sorry Petzold was there too and it was only then that i realised that those pics of a windows tatoo on him arm were true
When did M$ become a network device? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When did M$ become a network device? (Score:3, Informative)
You know, funny you should say that. I had a PII-450 with 3x 3Com NICs running RRAS (Routing and Remote Access) on Win2K that I was using for an internal router for 3 different subnets for over 2 and a half years. It was shuttling the data between the subnets with virtually no latency and I never had any down time. Literally just set it and forget it. One of the few times I was seriously impressed by MS
Re:When did M$ become a network device? (Score:1)
Re:When did M$ become a network device? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:When did M$ become a network device? (Score:1)
Re:When did M$ become a network device? (Score:2)
Informative anecdotal evidence to "If Windows is not actually writting data to the harddrives then it's probably a good OS..."
If the OS does what you want it to do it is a good OS.
If the OS does what it wants to do it is a bad OS.
It is possible for Windows to behave like a good OS.
In terms of writing to disk, standard instructions to our users is that if the system starts acting funny, do not log off, do not go through the normal shutdown sequence, do n
Re:When did M$ become a network device? (Score:2)
Then the people maintaining them are incompetent. They need to get some training, do some reasearch, and determine the root cause of the instability.
If they have no time or budget because upper management is incompetent, then they have my sympathy.
A properly configured and maintained NT system can be as stable as any other NOS. I have run NT systems with no unscheduled downtime for years.
CAVEAT: If you're really
Re:When did M$ become a network device? (Score:1)
Re:When did M$ become a network device? (Score:1)
This is old news (Score:4, Funny)
From the Author: (Score:4, Funny)
From the referenced BN page [barnesandnoble.com]:
"I have been fascinated by leadership dynamics throughout my working career. [...] A concern is that we often get to hear the same leadership issues over and over again, yet leaders continue to lead with mediocrity and passiveness".
His Billness will not take this lightly! These guys can kiss their jobs at Microsoft Research goodbye! :-)
No grain of salt here (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I will take no grain of salt regarding his comments about the book in question, untill I have achieved a decent status in the matter I will refer to Mr. Chavaukin's comments eagerly!
Re:No grain of salt here (Score:4, Informative)
This is what most security evaluations are assessed against. Threat Analysis/Risk Assessmeny (TARA) consultants are in high demand and can earn a lot of $$ these days.
Meanwhile, back at the MS penetration testing labs (Score:3, Funny)
Can it be, O brothers (Score:2, Funny)
Creation of the book (Score:1)
Next one invent some text around it.
Publish it and makes people pay for it.
So you make money from you're mistakes.
Funny:
I doubt most hackers who contributed to this masterpiece will ever see a paycheck. Probably they are mention in the hall of shame. (As ought to be)
Seriously, this might be a good book.
Great Source (Score:2, Funny)
Security From MS Press (Score:3, Insightful)
What's up with creating an inherently insecure system and selling a book on security? Shouldn't they use that same advice to create better products? Almost like the conspiracy theory of making someone ill and then selling them the cure.
Maybe the book brings up interesting points and great ideas...but it's like asking me to believe everything Baghdad Bob said.
more to security researchers than lab work (Score:5, Insightful)
The utility of the book comes from not just spreading the word about security, but having to do so in forums and formats that require it to be relevant, useable and correct.
As a security consultant and trainer myself I can attest to the gap between theory and practice and the need to put security issues in to terms that are able to be applied in the real world.
Comments above that assume that just because someone works for Microsoft, they don't know how things work in reality are generalisations made out of ignorance or jealousy. This book is a good example that the truth about Microsoft employees, like security, is often misunderstood.
Re:more to security researchers than lab work (Score:2, Interesting)
Outlook eats itself randomly? really?? I've never seen that--and I've been supporting it for years.Outlook .pst files--pre-2000--yes, they had a 2GB limit,and quite frankly it was much less..But Outlook..used with either pop mail or exchange..has NEVER been a problem for me--unless the clueless user forgets how to use it or deletes their .pst file because they don't think they need it.
Popups--that's a problem everywhere, even at home, but between SP2 and the google toolbar, it's minimal.
Reinstall the O
oh christ (Score:1, Flamebait)
Wait a minute...
Not all Microserfs are dolts (Score:3, Interesting)
I bet a lot of them do great work FOR the company, but its caught up and diluted by the much larger 'machine' that makes Microsoft go..
port scans? not in sp2 (Score:4, Insightful)
http://seclists.org/lists/nmap-hackers/2004/Jul-S
Re:port scans? not in sp2 (Score:1)
Re:port scans? not in sp2 (Score:2)
Ben Smith has had the same kind of problems with buy-in at Microsoft that you'd expect at any very large company. As with Windows, Office, IE code, etc. - just because they have some of the best security experts in the world working there doesn't mean that all of their re
Open source tools? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a box on a public IP -- speaking as a person who cannot devote 24/7 to security, are there any good automated tools to verify its "openness" in terms of security vulnerabilities?
I'm not talking about just potential root exploits and the like, but also about things like file permissions, which I find are hard to get exactly right on Unix (read: Linux with no special ACL stuff installed), where the file system does not support inheritance of security attributes.
Many Linux distros come with a script that's run nightly to report potential vulnerabilities, changed files etc. There are also tools like Snort and Tripwire. I also use Munin and check it daily for signs of DOS attacks and other suspicious activity (eg., a sudden increase in the number of listening ports).
What other automated tools do people here recommend?
Re:Open source tools? (Score:2)
Re:Open source tools? (Score:2)
Re:Open source tools? (Score:1)
Nessus (was: Re:Open source tools?) (Score:1)
Retina [eeye.com] is another excellent tool, but pricey.
nmap and nessus are always in my 'bag'. use it on a regular basis.
Re:Open source tools? (Score:2)
Re:Open source tools? (Score:2)