Re: Vulnerability scanners

• Previous message: Michael Welch: "RE: Vulnerability scanners"
• In reply to: Dan Lynch: "Vulnerability scanners"
• Next in thread: Paris Stone: "RE: Vulnerability scanners"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:58:39 +0100
From: Anders Thulin <Anders.Thulin@kiconsulting.se>
To: Dan Lynch <dan.lynch@placer.ca.gov>

Dan Lynch wrote:

> Any input you can offer is greatly appreciated.

   One of the more important factors to consider, I think,
is if the reporting fits your planned workflow, or if you
have to butcher it to make it work.

   I'm thinking mainly of the things that have to be done:
the 'action lists' to be given to the sysadmins. If reporting
can be done in terms of their real areas of responsibility it's
better than if you get a report in terms of C-nets, or types
of vulnerability, and have to cut and paste it to the form you
want it.

   Of course, in a stable network, it may not matter much, and
things won't change a lot. In a newwork with only one sysadmin,
again, this is not a major issue. In a university-type network --
lots of more or less autonomous nets where anything can and does
happen -- it may be very important to ensure reports get out
as quickly as possible.

-- 
Anders Thulin   anders.thulin@kiconsulting.se   040-661 50 63	
Ki Consulting AB, Box 85, SE-201 20 Malmö, Sweden
top spam and e-mail risk at the gateway.
SurfControl E-mail Filter puts the brakes on spam & viruses
and gives you the reports to prove it. See exactly how much
junk never even makes it in the door. Free 30-day trial:
http://www.surfcontrol.com/go/zsfptl1

• Previous message: Michael Welch: "RE: Vulnerability scanners"
• In reply to: Dan Lynch: "Vulnerability scanners"
• Next in thread: Paris Stone: "RE: Vulnerability scanners"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]