RE: [Full-Disclosure] Comparison of Network Security Scanners

From: Alexander (Pigrelax_at_yandex.ru)
Date: 07/02/04

  • Next message: Ron DuFresne: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] (IE/SCOB) Switching Software Because of Bugs: Some Facts About Software and Security bugs" 
    To: "'Gregory A. Gilliss'" <ggilliss@netpublishing.com>, <full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:12:03 +0400

    Hi!

    Certainly, this test is not independent. However, methodology of the
    tests is completely described, and everyone can check up them. I did not
    see any other similar tests comparing various vulnerability scanners.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com
    [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Gregory A.
    Gilliss
    Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 12:46 AM
    To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
    Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Comparison of Network Security Scanners

    On my *first* day at my current employer (a large network appliance
    vendor), we had a situation similar to this. One of these "independent
    evaluators" informed my employer that they were evaluating my employer's
    product, and that my employer had 24 hours to respond to their
    evaluation
    before they submitted their results.

    Basically these people were contracted by one of my employer's
    competitors
    to "evaluate" the competing products and publish the results. My
    employer's
    investigation revealed that these people obtained their equipment (with
    back level software) through a "gray market" vendor, and that their
    "tests"
    included such things as not configuring the hardware prior to testing.

    In summary, these "independent evaluators" appear to be nothing more
    than
    paid agent provocateurs who publish "results" designed to promote one
    specific product over the competition.

    BTW, I am not implying that *all* such testing organs are of this
    caliber,
    however caveat emptor.

    G

    On or about 2004.07.01 21:35:12 +0000, Anders B Jansson
    (hdw@kallisti.se) said:

    > And to everyones surprise their own product came out on top!
    >
    > Wow, it has to be good, film at 11
    >
    > // anders
    >
    > Alexander wrote:
    > >Hi all!
    > >
    > >Comparison of Network Security Scanners:
    > >
    > >http://www.maxpatrol.com/pd_cmp2.asp
    > >
    > >In this survey the following products were tested:
    > >1 IS - Internet Scanner 7.0 Internet Security Systems
    > >http://www.iss.net
    > >2 LG - LanGuard 3.2 GFI
    > >http://www.gfi.com
    > >3 Ns - Nessus 2.0.6 Renaud Deraison<
    > >http://www.nessus.org
    > >4 NR - NetRecon 3.6 Symantec
    > >http://www.symantec.com
    > >5 Rt - Retina 4.9.97 eEye Digital Security
    > >http://www.eeye.com
    > >6 MP - MaxPatrol 7.0 Positive Technologies
    > >http://www.maxpatrol.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >_______________________________________________
    > >Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    > >Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
    > >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html 

    -- 
Gregory A. Gilliss, CISSP                              E-mail:
greg@gilliss.com
Computer Security                             WWW:
http://www.gilliss.com/greg/
PGP Key fingerprint 2F 0B 70 AE 5F 8E 71 7A 2D 86 52 BA B7 83 D9 B4 14
0E 8C A3
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
  • Next message: Ron DuFresne: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] (IE/SCOB) Switching Software Because of Bugs: Some Facts About Software and Security bugs"