Experience Note An auditor was examining the business' network software development process for compliance to the company's policy and procedures. She discovered the programmers and engineers were not observing any of the policy requirements and were basically approaching their development phases in a haphazard fashion. She detailed her findings in a preliminary report to senior managers who told her that they had evolved past the SDLC and other quality methods. Instead, they were writing their code, installing it, and using the network vulnerability assessment as a quality control to determine any weaknesses existing in their software. Her audit report findings were lengthy and specific.
In conducting network and other types of practical vulnerability assessments, it is paramount that auditors adopt a holistic view of auditing. Auditing is the process by which prohibited, abusive, and irregular activities are found and reported. If a concerted auditing effort is adopted, the entire system consisting of the three pillars of human resources, data and physical facilities will be measured as part of risk management and operational efficiency.
Vulnerability assessments only measure those vulnerabilities that are within the scope of the rules of engagement, the knowledge of the auditors, and those system vulnerabilities that are present at the time of the assessment. It should be made clear that network vulnerability assessments must be considered as part of the whole audit picture. They are not a substitute for poor systems design and management.
Network vulnerability assessments are the part of the audit program whose purpose is the practical identification of system vulnerabilities. If vulnerabilities are found, and they will be found, they will be reported as findings, accompanied by recommendations in the audit report. It is a fair statement that you cannot repair system weaknesses, unless you locate them first. If during a comprehensive audit, senior managers fail to locate and repair system vulnerabilities, it is a safe bet that attackers inside and outside the organization will find and exploit them. The general goals and objectives of system vulnerability assessments are as follows:
Audit team members should be carefully selected for their experience, people skills, communications skills, good judgment, system knowledge, and knowledge of software and intrusion and attacker tactics. It is recommended they have a good knowledge of programming in languages such as C, C++, Java, and PERL. Programming skills and network knowledge enable auditors to review open source tools, fix or modify them, and write their own programs, if necessary. It is worth remembering that running automated tools without an understanding of the underlying protocols and issues is dangerous and generally will not provide sufficient insight when documenting findings in the audit report. Skills such as persuasive sales are a valuable commodity if the audit team is going to engage in social engineering. Often the question is asked if this is "white-hat," "black-hat," or "gray-hat" system attacking.
Experience Note Personally, the author thinks the "hat" business is a bit of nonsense. Some organizations are caught up in the idea of hiring individuals of questionable character, but who have a great deal of skill. Many are convicted felons. Think of this example, "Would you hire a professional thief to make a security survey of your business?" Prudent business managers should engage professionals of known abilities with impeccable references, not soon-to-be indicted attackers.
Questions arise whether organizations should outsource system vulnerability assessments or develop the skills internally. Correct answers are not easily decided as there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides. There is some degree of risk in outsourcing vulnerability assessments unless a significant amount of research is done.
Experience Note There are many outside "system security consultants" that are reformed attackers. Some have even spent time in prison for their criminal behavior, while others have been defendants in lawsuits centered in their unlawful behavior.
So before contracting outside vulnerability auditors, it is prudent to discuss their backgrounds, experience, bonding, the length of time they have been in business, and references. Demand they provide a long list of satisfied clients and a few that were not so satisfied. Contracts should be carefully crafted enumerating liabilities and responsibilities.
It is strongly recommended that several lawyers, having experience with services of this nature, review the details of the contract before being finalized.
It is the practice of most consultants to spend an inordinate amount of time keeping skills current to explore and exploit system weaknesses. For some, their skills' improvement and bragging rights are something that borders on obsession. On their own time, they explore system weaknesses to the exclusion of other pursuits. Many consultants can tell you about successfully gaining root access to systems that were considered impregnable by its owners. Regardless, if the decision is made to use contractors, your sensitive assets are subject to capture by the outsiders. You are giving them the key to the business' crown jewels.
Experience Note It is quite likely that today's system audit consultant will not be employed by the firm for more than a short time. She knows your system's vulnerabilities when she decides to exploit them.
If the organization decides to develop inside talents, there are many suitable training courses available that can provide the skills necessary to perform a respectable system vulnerability assessment. Training of this nature is valuable and can be used as part of an employee development program. It is important to note that systems auditing skills are a serious commitment in that they require constant upgrading and expansion as new technologies emerge and new weaknesses are announced.
