Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rick Stevens <ricks <at> nerd.com> writes:
I'm aware of that, but the people who do the penetration testing squawk
anything that's less than 0.9.8h. Technically it's a false positive,
but it is still in the reports and we have to prove that it's a false
positive each time. I know what the vulnerabilities are and I've had
discussions with the pentest people, but they won't budge.
Show them my message, show it to their superiors. It is completely wrong to
flag tools as "vulnerable" just by looking at the version, the penetration
testing team is not doing their job! They're supposed to actually try the
exploits, not just check the versions.
They do test for the exploits and they do see we're not vulnerable.
They still report the version and flag it. Believe me, I've been around
and around with them about this issue.
At this point, it's just easier to build the latest, package up my own
RPM and do whatever crap is required in the %post scriptlets to make the
crud work than continue the argument with these people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks@xxxxxxxx -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- "Hello. My PID is Inigo Montoya. You `kill -9'-ed my parent -
- process. Prepare to vi." -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
