The Sad Tale of Etaoin ShrdLu and the Danger of Automated Pen Tests
summary
Describes risks of relying on automated, one-click penetration testing and checkbox-style audits, using examples from physical penetration tests and social engineering to show how attackers exploit rigid testing approaches. Emphasizes the need to go beyond default tool outputs (e.g., printed reports) and to design pen tests that anticipate inventive, outside-the-box attacks rather than stopping at automated scans.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (14)
- 0:00RSAConference 2018
- 2:04The Sad Tale of Etaoin Shrdlu
- 6:59The Dream...
- 13:14Enter the Automated Pen Test
- 14:52But, what if it's Console ports?
- 19:14What if it's "Taco Truck Tuesday"?
- 22:34The Sad Tale of L. B. Jeffries
- 27:05So, what's the point Doug?
- 29:57The reality is?
- 30:35So, we shouldn't do automated Pen Tests?
- 32:19How do you find the balance?
- 35:51The failure facet fulcrum
- 38:29Apply: What to do?
- 41:21Questions?
related talks
17mManual versus automated penetration testing on AWS
44mApplication Security: Everything we know is wrong
39mAutomating myself out of a job...
20mMaking Penetration Tests Actually Useful
50mA CISO's Best Friend: The Pentester
56mBuilding An Effective Application Penetration Testing Team
19mPenetration Testing
40mAutomated Security: Face Your Vulnerabilities