Comment comparez-vous la couverture, la profondeur et la qualité des différents frameworks de tests d’intrusion ?

Frameworks are an excellent start for creating the foundation of pen testing and its approach. But we need more here. Way more. We need governance around the way our teams are designed and configured and what the objectives are for their overall mission and specific tactical pieces of work. That is what drives outcomes of quality. Frameworks such as OWASP, OSSTM, NIST et al are great for creating a tactical basis and foundation for the basics. They ensure coverage. We then need to build operational practices and procedures on top of this with knowledge bases that link to these frameworks but then take them into our own intellectual property. We need to make them shine and add more value.

Research and Review: Gather information about popular frameworks such as Metasploit, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, Nmap, etc. Explore their documentation, features, and user feedback. Testing Scenarios: Define specific testing scenarios and requirements based on your organization's needs (e.g., web application security, internal network assessment, compliance testing). Pilot Testing: Conduct pilot tests using each framework against predefined scenarios to assess coverage, depth, and quality. Performance Metrics: Develop metrics to quantitatively measure and compare the results obtained from each framework (e.g., number of vulnerabilities detected, false positives, time to complete tests). User Experience: Consider the ease of use, learning curve.

Methodologies have emerged to define the limits that a pentester can perform their tests and ensure compliance with main market standards that are required by customers and suppliers for their own security standards. Therefore, methodologies emerge to ensure that tests cover specific requirements that could be disregarded during testing.

A penetration testing framework is a structured set of tools, methods, and guidelines used to plan, execute, and report security assessments. It ensures a consistent approach to testing and includes industry standards, methodologies, and automated tools.

A penetration testing framework is a set of guidelines used to conduct penetration tests. These frameworks provide standardized methods and best practices for performing penetration tests, ensuring thoroughness and consistency. Examples: OWASP PTES (Penetration Testing Execution Standard) NIST SP 800-115 OSSTMM (Open Source Security Testing Methodology Manual)

In my experience, comparing the coverage of penetration testing frameworks involves assessing their suitability for addressing specific security challenges and objectives. For instance, in a recent penetration testing project aimed at evaluating the security posture of a web application, we carefully evaluated the coverage offered by various frameworks in terms of their support for testing techniques such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and authentication bypass. By aligning the testing objectives with the capabilities of each framework, we were able to select the most appropriate one that provided comprehensive coverage across the entire attack surface.

Analyze Vulnerability Coverage Known Vulnerabilities: Assess the framework's ability to identify known vulnerabilities based on databases like CVE, NVD, or proprietary sources. Zero-Day Vulnerabilities: Evaluate if the framework includes capabilities to identify potential zero-day vulnerabilities through advanced techniques. 5. Review Documentation and Community Support Documentation: Examine the completeness and clarity of documentation provided by the framework's developers. Community Support: Check the size and activity of the framework's user community, as active communities often contribute to improving coverage and resolving issues. 6. Conduct Comparative Testing Test Scenarios: Define specific penetration testing scenarios.

When evaluating penetration testing frameworks, it's essential to gauge their capacity for conducting comprehensive security assessments. Consideration should be given to the variety of testing types and levels supported, such as black-box, white-box, or gray-box testing, and whether they are geared towards internal or external assessments. Assess the frameworks' coverage across diverse target domains, including web applications, network infrastructure, mobile devices, cloud services, and IoT devices. Additionally, analyze the breadth and depth of available testing techniques, encompassing active or passive testing, manual or automated methods, and vulnerability scanning or exploitation testing.

To compare penetration testing frameworks, assess their support for various testing types (black-box, white-box, gray-box), target domains (web, network, mobile, cloud, IoT), and the range of testing techniques (active/passive, manual/automated, scanning/exploitation). Evaluate their comprehensiveness and suitability for your specific security assessment needs.

Practices and standards for penetration testing are essential to ensure that assessments are conducted systematically, ethically, and effectively. Key practices and standards include: Pre-Engagement Information Gathering Scanning and Enumeration Exploitation Post-Exploitation Reporting Remediation and Follow-Up Adhering to these practices and standards ensures that penetration testing is thorough, reliable, and aligned with industry best practices.

Evaluating the depth of penetration testing frameworks requires considering their ability to uncover intricate vulnerabilities and security weaknesses within a target system or network. For example, during a penetration test conducted on a critical infrastructure network, we compared the depth of different frameworks by examining their capacity to identify and exploit complex misconfigurations, insider threats, and advanced persistent threats (APTs). By leveraging frameworks that offered sophisticated techniques and methodologies, we were able to simulate real-world attack scenarios and provide valuable insights into the resilience of the network defenses.

To compare the depth of penetration testing frameworks, assess their capability to discover and exploit vulnerabilities across diverse systems, the comprehensiveness of their reports, and the adaptability in simulating real-world attack scenarios effectively.

Evaluate Exploitation Capabilities Exploit Validation: Determine if the framework can validate identified vulnerabilities through successful exploitation, showcasing the impact and severity of the issues. Post-Exploitation: Assess whether the framework supports post-exploitation activities such as privilege escalation, lateral movement, and persistence testing. 4. Analyze Technical Capabilities Network Layer Testing: Evaluate the framework's ability to conduct detailed network-level tests, including port scanning, service enumeration, and vulnerability assessment. Web Application Testing: Assess the framework's support for testing web applications, including identification of common vulnerabilities like XSS, SQL injection, CSRF, etc.

Assessing penetration testing frameworks involves examining their toolset comprehensiveness, exploit coverage, adaptability across systems, and reporting features. Look at their flexibility to handle various scenarios, compatibility with your setup, support for customizations, and community involvement. Ultimately, choose a framework that best suits your specific security assessment needs.

Assessing the quality of penetration testing frameworks entails scrutinizing their adherence to industry standards, documentation practices, and reporting capabilities. In a recent security assessment project, we evaluated the quality of various frameworks by examining their compliance with regulatory requirements, such as GDPR or PCI DSS, and their ability to produce clear and actionable reports. By selecting frameworks that followed established guidelines and best practices, we were able to deliver high-quality assessments that provided stakeholders with valuable insights into their security posture and potential vulnerabilities.

Research and Review: Gather information about popular frameworks such as Metasploit, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, Nmap, etc. Explore their documentation, features, and user feedback. Performance Metrics: quantitatively measure and compare the results obtained from each framework (number of vulnerabilities detected, false positives, time to complete tests). User Experience: Consider the ease of use, learning curve, and community support for each framework. Cost vs. Value: Evaluate the cost of acquiring and maintaining each framework against the value it provides in terms of security insights and risk reduction. Feedback and Iteration: Gather feedback from testers and stakeholders to refine your evaluation criteria and make an informed decision.

There's many ways to define quality and I don't believe that one tool should purport to do everything, however, some of the most important qualities for me would include flexibility, speed, prevelence of false positives, community support and whether the tool is open-source or not. One success of the past couple years is definitely projectdiscovery's tool, nuclei. It started as a way to check for known exploits but has expanded massively through user-created templates and consistent developer updates. Over the past year or so, it has grown to include IOT testing, mobile apps and general fuzzing to discover unknown vulnerabilities.

To compare penetration testing frameworks, assess their adherence to industry standards, effectiveness in finding vulnerabilities, and clarity in reporting findings and recommendations. Look for consistency, thoroughness in documentation, and alignment with best practices.

When choosing the best penetration testing framework, it's essential to consider factors such as the specific goals of the assessment, available resources, and the expertise of the testing team. For instance, in a scenario where time constraints were a significant factor, we opted for a framework known for its efficiency and automation capabilities, allowing us to conduct a thorough assessment within a tight timeframe. Conversely, in situations where in-depth analysis and manual testing were paramount, we selected frameworks that provided extensive customization options and support for advanced testing techniques, ensuring comprehensive coverage and accurate results

Research Available Penetration Testing Frameworks Popular Frameworks: Look into well-known frameworks such as Metasploit, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, Nmap, etc. Specialized Tools: Explore specialized tools if you have specific testing needs (e.g., mobile app testing with MobSF, wireless network testing with Aircrack-ng). Open Source vs. Commercial: Decide between open-source and commercial frameworks based on your budget and feature requirements. 3. Assess Coverage and Depth Coverage: Evaluate the framework's ability to test various systems and technologies (networks, applications, databases, cloud platforms, etc.). Depth: Consider the framework's depth in identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities, including support for manual testingscripting.

Depending on the business, you define the best methodology and process to be worked on, for example: If the company has many applications, obviously considering the methodologies that OWASP developed is the ideal process, so it is good to understand your company's business and define the best process and framework.

Choose a penetration testing framework based on your specific needs: consider the test objectives, available resources, team expertise, and budget. Evaluate frameworks against these criteria to find the best fit for your requirements.

I'd also place value on how well it integrates with current tools that are irreplaceable in a pentester's toolkit. Since those tools may very, it's important that the framework be flexible, scalable and customizable enough to work for many different users and against many different targets.

Additionally, consider the integration of the framework with existing indispensable tools in a pentester's arsenal. Given the variability of these tools, flexibility, scalability, and customization are paramount. The framework should seamlessly adapt to diverse user preferences and target environments. This ensures optimal efficiency and effectiveness across various scenarios, enhancing the overall efficacy of the penetration testing process.