Pen tests may seem like a security test panacea. However they have been known to go terribly wrong and become vastly expensive. Here’s what you need to know to make sure you get the results you want at the price you expect.
Pen tests come in many flavours and degrees of risk. Some pen tests are active which means a security expert is actively trying to exploit security vulnerabilities that they have identified. Some are passive which means the test is really a vulnerability assessment. In a vulnerability assessment there is no active testing whatsoever.
There are black box and white box pen tests. Black box tests assume zero prior knowledge. The auditor must first do research which may include social engineering in order to create a profile of the target network. It gets better. The black box pen test can be done on a need to know basis with the IT department kept in the dark. The pen test sponsor of the audit, such as the IT Security Governance Committee, may deem it necessary to exclude members of the IT department from being informed about the test.
White box pen tests are philosophically the exact opposite of black box pen tests. White box pen tests are based upon testing specific security elements within an enterprise network and all the work is carefully choreographed in concert with the client’s IT operations group prior to commencement of the test. In my opinion this is a much better approach for the following reasons:
If you decide on any sort of pen testing my advice is to discuss the test methodology with respect to several standards and recommended methodologies. Here are but a few to consider:
What are you trying to identify?
If your goal is to identify security and compliance vulnerabilities then I would suggest you strongly consider the white box pen test or vulnerability assessment. There is a far better return on investment, in my opinion, of paying for an auditor to find the vulnerabilities, allow you the time to fix them, and then to retest, rather than to pay someone to attempt to breach vulnerability.
The reason for this is quite simple. The time a pen test team will spend attempting to breach vulnerability is usually in direct proportion to the amount of money the client is willing to pay for the test. So test time is limited. Not so for a potential hacker. So money is better spent eliminating rather than testing a vulnerability.
It is also critical to identify exactly what elements of an infrastructure are worth examining for vulnerabilities:
Careful consideration of your business goals should point you in the right direction when choosing your pen test options.
Have a secure week.
Regards,
Ron Lepofsky CISSP, B.A. SC. (Mech Eng)
ERE Information Security and Privacy Auditors
Ron Lepofsky, CISSP, is founder and president of ERE Information Security and Privacy Auditors, an information security audit and compliance company since 2000. Previously Ron was founder and president of data telecommunications company PTI Telecommunications, founded in 1989.
Ron graduated with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto, B.A. SC. And after that he spent time as a sales representative for high tech companies until he struck out on his own including stints at Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd., Timeplex Canada Limited and Data General Canada Ltd.
Ron is a frequent contributor of articles published in a wide variety of media outlets relating to information security, privacy, law, electrical utilities. He is also an avid blogger on the topics of security and privacy, both on the ERE site and other security sites. When not writing or auditing/implementing, Ron is a frequent speaker at industry conferences.
And if all that wasn't enough, Ron also makes great dark chocolate-covered strawberries, nuts, dried fruit and cookies.