<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>ClearNet Security: Tag logs</title>
    <link>http://blog.clearnetsec.com/articles/tag/logs</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description></description>
    <item>
      <title>Anything alert you?</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;There is nothing I&#8217;ve seen recently to promote a valuable exercise to do after receiving a security assessment.  That is, as the client, &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;what did you see?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;  
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Did you have anything alert you?  If so, what did it suggest?  Did you have enough information to piece together what was happening?  &lt;i&gt;(Bonus:  do you know which tools were fired towards your IPs?)&lt;/i&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The majority of my clients have no clue if anything occurred.  That&#8217;s bad.  Businesses which have little to lose may decide to ignore investing in monitoring and detection, but for others it&#8217;s turning a blind eye.  
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I&#8217;m going to dig a little deeper on future exit calls to get more information.  I often ask clients if they detected any strange behavior, but there is definitely more room to expand the discussion.
&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:37:00 -0600</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:24cb4f05-698b-44aa-8bef-cd848ee81b28</guid>
      <author>tate@ClearNetSec.com (Tate Hansen)</author>
      <link>http://blog.clearnetsec.com/articles/2007/09/05/anything-alert-you</link>
      <category>ClearNet Security</category>
      <category>Tate Hansen</category>
      <category>ClearNet</category>
      <category>security</category>
      <category>assessments</category>
      <category>penetration</category>
      <category>testing</category>
      <category>logs</category>
      <category>detection</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Unbalanced reliance on prevention</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
On my last several &#8216;exit calls&#8217; for security assessments I&#8217;ve wanted to ask the customer if they had anything alerting them to the activities performed. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The obvious need for detection is a tiresome mantra to repeat, given that &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;prevention will always fail&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.  In fact, is it not better to log all activities (e.g. syslog, netflow, successful sessions, etc.) in spite of using prevention tools?  If knowing you&#8217;ve been compromised is a better state that not knowing, then isn&#8217;t it better to pay appropriate attention to all the events versus haphazardly trusting prevention solutions?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://blog.clearnetsec.com/files/iStock_000002497333XSmall.jpg" align="right"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I just finished an external security assessment for a Bank which had an IPS enabled firewall.  They requested two rounds of scanning: one with the IPS features enabled and the other with them disabled.  Results:  no difference.  This from normal to aggressive scanning (full 65k scans, full vuln. scans from multiple tools, few metasploit shots, exhaustive brute forcing, etc.) and without any efforts to be elusive.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I&#8217;m betting if I ask this client if he noticed any activity spikes or if he was alerted to anything he&#8217;ll say no.  Furthermore, I bet he has nothing setup to help him easily go check.  
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I&#8217;m running across more and more of these where it seems the first indicators of something bad is when actual fraud occurs.  Compromise, theft of data, spread of attackers&#8217; control -- all missed opportunities to &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;detect and contain&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; because of an unbalanced reliance on prevention tools.
&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:01:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:3516c58f-49d4-4722-b69e-31ee53a6efa8</guid>
      <author>tate@ClearNetSec.com (Tate Hansen)</author>
      <link>http://blog.clearnetsec.com/articles/2007/02/28/unbalanced-reliance-on-prevention</link>
      <category>security</category>
      <category>ClearNet</category>
      <category>ClearNet Security</category>
      <category>Tate Hansen</category>
      <category>logs</category>
      <category>detection</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
