Alright, I've gotten stuff back from everybody and am putting the report together for a first draft. Andrea has a meeting with a committee on Thursday afternoon, she has requested a draft by then if possible. I will post a first draft late tonight or first thing in the morning for your review. Will let you all know when it's posted. You'll have roughly 24 - 36 hours to review it. We can make big changes if necessary even after I send it to Andrea, but it would be nice if you could all take a look sometime tomorrow to make sure there aren't major glaring problems.
Also, Jake sent in a couple of positive findings that I think I'll include in the report. if you have any positive findings you wish to highlight, please send those to me ASAP. I plan on having a single section devoted to that, so I just need to know what the positive finding is and a real brief blurb about it.
Thanks, Andrew
Ok, in my folder on USHEdump there is a word doc called WSU-Report-Draft-1.0.docx. Please take a look at it today. Andrea has a meeting with her Infosec Task Force tomorrow at 1PM. If you have anything to add or change in this draft I need it before ~10 AM tomorrow.
Things I need your help with:
-I added a section in the executive summary called Summarized Finding that has some very brief stuff about what we found and were able to do. I don't like the heading name and I'm not sure if what I've got there is the right stuff or not. Please offer any suggestions.
-Chuck, I need some help making control 16 coherent. I added what you sent me yesterday in the recommendations as I thought it fit best there, but there is a lot of stuff in the findings that is verbatim from last year including stuff about their now old-news AD implementation. Anything you can do there would help.
-In the Penetration Testing detailed findings:
I reworked everything to have 3 sections: Tests and Findings Recommendations References (Optional)
This seemed to work best based on the subtly different formats I got from everyone. I mashed together some of the findings, Jake and Dave both had unauthenticated SMB shares writeups so they were combined. I included Jake's access to Lucas' workstation in with Chuck's writeup on using his credentials to pwn Banner, etc.
-Positive Findings:
This section is way anemic, and my brain hurts from staring at this report for three straight days, I'm having a hard time thinking of nice things. If you have something nice to say about Weber, let me know and I'll amend that section.
-Grammer, spelling, ugly verbiage, formatting critiques etc.
Thanks all of you for your hard work on your sections and help with the report in general.
Andrew
On 01/07/2014 04:39 PM, Andrew Goble wrote:
Alright, I've gotten stuff back from everybody and am putting the report together for a first draft. Andrea has a meeting with a committee on Thursday afternoon, she has requested a draft by then if possible. I will post a first draft late tonight or first thing in the morning for your review. Will let you all know when it's posted. You'll have roughly 24 - 36 hours to review it. We can make big changes if necessary even after I send it to Andrea, but it would be nice if you could all take a look sometime tomorrow to make sure there aren't major glaring problems.
Also, Jake sent in a couple of positive findings that I think I'll include in the report. if you have any positive findings you wish to highlight, please send those to me ASAP. I plan on having a single section devoted to that, so I just need to know what the positive finding is and a real brief blurb about it.
Thanks, Andrew _______________________________________________ USHE-assess mailing list USHE-assess@lists.dixie.edu http://lists.dixie.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ushe-assess
Mark offered the suggest that rather than having a positives section, we just include any positives in an appropriate testing section. I think I like this better approach than a separate section where we keep the happy stuff.
He also reminded me about the phishing attack, which I had completely spaced off.
So, for example, we could simply have a section in the penetration testing area that talks about the phishing attack and how great it was that Weber's system filtered it. Could do another that says its wonderful that Weber is filtering IPv6 at the border.
Thanks, Andrew
On 01/08/2014 12:13 PM, Andrew Goble wrote:
Ok, in my folder on USHEdump there is a word doc called WSU-Report-Draft-1.0.docx. Please take a look at it today. Andrea has a meeting with her Infosec Task Force tomorrow at 1PM. If you have anything to add or change in this draft I need it before ~10 AM tomorrow.
Things I need your help with:
-I added a section in the executive summary called Summarized Finding that has some very brief stuff about what we found and were able to do. I don't like the heading name and I'm not sure if what I've got there is the right stuff or not. Please offer any suggestions.
-Chuck, I need some help making control 16 coherent. I added what you sent me yesterday in the recommendations as I thought it fit best there, but there is a lot of stuff in the findings that is verbatim from last year including stuff about their now old-news AD implementation. Anything you can do there would help.
-In the Penetration Testing detailed findings:
I reworked everything to have 3 sections: Tests and Findings Recommendations References (Optional)
This seemed to work best based on the subtly different formats I got from everyone. I mashed together some of the findings, Jake and Dave both had unauthenticated SMB shares writeups so they were combined. I included Jake's access to Lucas' workstation in with Chuck's writeup on using his credentials to pwn Banner, etc.
-Positive Findings:
This section is way anemic, and my brain hurts from staring at this report for three straight days, I'm having a hard time thinking of nice things. If you have something nice to say about Weber, let me know and I'll amend that section.
-Grammer, spelling, ugly verbiage, formatting critiques etc.
Thanks all of you for your hard work on your sections and help with the report in general.
Andrew
On 01/07/2014 04:39 PM, Andrew Goble wrote:
Alright, I've gotten stuff back from everybody and am putting the report together for a first draft. Andrea has a meeting with a committee on Thursday afternoon, she has requested a draft by then if possible. I will post a first draft late tonight or first thing in the morning for your review. Will let you all know when it's posted. You'll have roughly 24 - 36 hours to review it. We can make big changes if necessary even after I send it to Andrea, but it would be nice if you could all take a look sometime tomorrow to make sure there aren't major glaring problems.
Also, Jake sent in a couple of positive findings that I think I'll include in the report. if you have any positive findings you wish to highlight, please send those to me ASAP. I plan on having a single section devoted to that, so I just need to know what the positive finding is and a real brief blurb about it.
Thanks, Andrew _______________________________________________ USHE-assess mailing list USHE-assess@lists.dixie.edu http://lists.dixie.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ushe-assess
USHE-assess mailing list USHE-assess@lists.dixie.edu http://lists.dixie.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ushe-assess
I've given Andrea a copy of the latest draft. It's version 1.1 and you can find it in Andrea's folder on ushedump. She's going to provide feedback on the report and I'll get that back to you all. In the meantime, as you have time, please keep looking through the report, there are probably still plenty of typos and grammer messes in it.
Thanks, Andrew
On 01/08/2014 04:13 PM, Andrew Goble wrote:
Mark offered the suggest that rather than having a positives section, we just include any positives in an appropriate testing section. I think I like this better approach than a separate section where we keep the happy stuff.
He also reminded me about the phishing attack, which I had completely spaced off.
So, for example, we could simply have a section in the penetration testing area that talks about the phishing attack and how great it was that Weber's system filtered it. Could do another that says its wonderful that Weber is filtering IPv6 at the border.
Thanks, Andrew
On 01/08/2014 12:13 PM, Andrew Goble wrote:
Ok, in my folder on USHEdump there is a word doc called WSU-Report-Draft-1.0.docx. Please take a look at it today. Andrea has a meeting with her Infosec Task Force tomorrow at 1PM. If you have anything to add or change in this draft I need it before ~10 AM tomorrow.
Things I need your help with:
-I added a section in the executive summary called Summarized Finding that has some very brief stuff about what we found and were able to do. I don't like the heading name and I'm not sure if what I've got there is the right stuff or not. Please offer any suggestions.
-Chuck, I need some help making control 16 coherent. I added what you sent me yesterday in the recommendations as I thought it fit best there, but there is a lot of stuff in the findings that is verbatim from last year including stuff about their now old-news AD implementation. Anything you can do there would help.
-In the Penetration Testing detailed findings:
I reworked everything to have 3 sections: Tests and Findings Recommendations References (Optional)
This seemed to work best based on the subtly different formats I got from everyone. I mashed together some of the findings, Jake and Dave both had unauthenticated SMB shares writeups so they were combined. I included Jake's access to Lucas' workstation in with Chuck's writeup on using his credentials to pwn Banner, etc.
-Positive Findings:
This section is way anemic, and my brain hurts from staring at this report for three straight days, I'm having a hard time thinking of nice things. If you have something nice to say about Weber, let me know and I'll amend that section.
-Grammer, spelling, ugly verbiage, formatting critiques etc.
Thanks all of you for your hard work on your sections and help with the report in general.
Andrew
On 01/07/2014 04:39 PM, Andrew Goble wrote:
Alright, I've gotten stuff back from everybody and am putting the report together for a first draft. Andrea has a meeting with a committee on Thursday afternoon, she has requested a draft by then if possible. I will post a first draft late tonight or first thing in the morning for your review. Will let you all know when it's posted. You'll have roughly 24 - 36 hours to review it. We can make big changes if necessary even after I send it to Andrea, but it would be nice if you could all take a look sometime tomorrow to make sure there aren't major glaring problems.
Also, Jake sent in a couple of positive findings that I think I'll include in the report. if you have any positive findings you wish to highlight, please send those to me ASAP. I plan on having a single section devoted to that, so I just need to know what the positive finding is and a real brief blurb about it.
Thanks, Andrew _______________________________________________ USHE-assess mailing list USHE-assess@lists.dixie.edu http://lists.dixie.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ushe-assess
USHE-assess mailing list USHE-assess@lists.dixie.edu http://lists.dixie.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ushe-assess
USHE-assess mailing list USHE-assess@lists.dixie.edu http://lists.dixie.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ushe-assess
participants (1)
-
Andrew Goble