This post originated from an RSS feed registered with .NET Buzz
by Robert Hurlbut.
Original Post: Article on Penetration Testing
Feed Title: Robert Hurlbut's .Net Blog
Feed URL: http://www.asp.net/err404.htm?aspxerrorpath=/rhurlbut/Rss.aspx
Feed Description: Development with .Net, Rotor, Distributed Architectures, Security, Extreme Programming, and Databases
And, Dana Epp cites the same article and a part that really sums up the article:
However, itâs unreasonable to verify that a negative doesnât exist by merely enumerating actions with the intention to produce a fault, reporting if and under which circumstances the fault occurs. If "negative" tests don't uncover any faults, we've only proven that no faults occur under particular test conditions; by no means have we proven that no faults exist. When applied to security testing, where the lack of a security vulnerability is the negative we're interested in, this means that passing a software penetration test provides very little assurance that an application is immune to attack. One of the main problems with today's most common approaches to penetration testing is misunderstanding this subtle point.
Timely, and indpendent of the article, I have submitted a proposal to talk on Penetration Testing with ASP.NET Applications at Code Camp III.