Security Tools More Harmful Than Helpful?

soblasted writes "With the recent 2.0 release of the Metasploit Framework, people are wondering if security tools like it do more good than harm. This article attempts to answer the question. The legitimate use of the framework is for security researchers to use in exploit testing and development.It will run on any OS with Perl, and includes a CLI and web GUI, along with many ready to run exploits and payload modules. With HP also developing systems to preemptively attack their own networks, has this become acceptable?" This issue reminds me of the first release of SATAN and the uproar it caused.

Comments

It's a dual edge sword

[drizst 'n drat]

Having tools to help in identification of weaknesses is not a bad idea (one side) - OTOH - the same tools can also help a hacker use that information to exploit your system (other side). Not that they couldn't do it anyway -- but hey -- this is faster. It was stated in the article that "The problem today is that many organizations do not patch systems until a working exploit is released". How true this as well as the comment that "The bottom line is that exploits are not only useful but are (also) required for many types of legitimate work." Brings to mind some of the restrictions that are placed on useful processes such as the remote commands, snmp, and other features built into the OS. Nice to know where problems are so that they can be locked down ... but what if you really need them ...