|
|
|
Black Box versus White Box testing and when to use them |
Si vous voulez bloquer ce service sur vos fils RSS
Si vous voulez nous contacter ou nous proposer un fil RSS
Menu > Articles de la revue de presse : - l'ensemble [ tous | francophone] - par mots clé [ tous] - par site [ tous] - le tagwall [ voir] - Top bi-hebdo de la revue de presse [ Voir]
Black Box versus White Box testing and when to use them Par RLR UKLe [2015-11-09] à 23:44:55
Présentation : I have recently been speaking to many security professionals and asking them about black box and white box testing. I have used it as an interview question on many occasions as well. People's answers are varied and interesting, but I thought I would share my views briefly here. Firstly, what are black box testing and white box testing, or grey box testing for that matter Simply put, a black box test is one where the tester has no knowledge of the internal structure or workings of the system and will usually test with security protections in place. They may not even be given credentials to a system that requires authentication. This would be equivalent to what a hacker would have access to. The opposite extreme is a white box test, where the tester has full knowledge of the system and access to the code, system settings and credentials for every role, including the administrator. The tester will likely be testing from inside the security perimeter. Grey box testing sits somewhere in the middle, where the tester will have knowledge of the functionality of the system and the overall components, but not detailed knowledge. They will usually have credentials, but may still test with some security controls in place. So, when would you use the different levels of testing Personally, I think that grey box testing is neither one thing nor the other and holds little value. For me, the motivation behind black box testing is compliance, whereas the motivation behind white box testing is security. With a white box test you are far more likely to find security issues, understand them and be able to fix or mitigate them effectively, so why wouldn't you do it The black box test is supposedly what a hacker would see, but they have far more time, so it isn't even representative. The only reason to perform a black box test is to pass some audit that you are afraid you might fail if you perform a full white box test, in my opinion. If you actually want to be secure, then make sure you always commission white box tests from your security testers.
Les derniers articles du site "RLR UK" :
- Black Box versus White Box testing and when to use them - Security groups should sit under Marketing, not IT - EU Commission Working Group looking at privacy concerns in IoT - Internal cyber attacks - more thoughts - eBay's Weak Security Architecture - Denial of Service DoS and Brute-Force Protection - The Disconnect between Security and Senior Management - Web Hosting Security Policy Guidelines - Pentests Don't Make You Secure - Here come the Security Police
Menu > Articles de la revue de presse : - l'ensemble [ tous | francophone] - par mots clé [ tous] - par site [ tous] - le tagwall [ voir] - Top bi-hebdo de la revue de presse [ Voir]
Si vous voulez bloquer ce service sur vos fils RSS :
- avec iptables "iptables -A INPUT -s 88.190.17.190 --dport 80 -j DROP"
- avec ipfw et wipfw "ipfw add deny from 88.190.17.190 to any 80"
- Nous contacter par mail
| Mini-Tagwall des articles publiés sur SecuObs : | | | | sécurité, exploit, windows, attaque, outil, microsoft, réseau, audit, metasploit, vulnérabilité, système, virus, internet, usbsploit, données, source, linux, protocol, présentation, scanne, réseaux, scanner, bluetooth, conférence, reverse, shell, meterpreter, vista, rootkit, détection, mobile, security, malicieux, engineering, téléphone, paquet, trames, https, noyau, utilisant, intel, wishmaster, google, sysun, libre |
| Mini-Tagwall de l'annuaire video : | | | | curit, security, biomet, metasploit, biometric, cking, password, windows, botnet, defcon, tutorial, crypt, xploit, exploit, lockpicking, linux, attack, wireshark, vmware, rootkit, conference, network, shmoocon, backtrack, virus, conficker, elcom, etter, elcomsoft, server, meterpreter, openvpn, ettercap, openbs, iphone, shell, openbsd, iptables, securitytube, deepsec, source, office, systm, openssh, radio |
| Mini-Tagwall des articles de la revue de presse : | | | | security, microsoft, windows, hacker, attack, network, vulnerability, google, exploit, malware, internet, remote, iphone, server, inject, patch, apple, twitter, mobile, virus, ebook, facebook, vulnérabilité, crypt, source, linux, password, intel, research, virtual, phish, access, tutorial, trojan, social, privacy, firefox, adobe, overflow, office, cisco, conficker, botnet, pirate, sécurité |
| Mini-Tagwall des Tweets de la revue Twitter : | | | | security, linux, botnet, attack, metasploit, cisco, defcon, phish, exploit, google, inject, server, firewall, network, twitter, vmware, windows, microsoft, compliance, vulnerability, python, engineering, source, kernel, crypt, social, overflow, nessus, crack, hacker, virus, iphone, patch, virtual, javascript, malware, conficker, pentest, research, email, password, adobe, apache, proxy, backtrack |
|
|
|
|
|