2 ms·
> We had to spend a week back and forth with We've had similar out of a pen test that noted we were using nginx for some of our internal dashboards/tools and t
by dspillett 4y ago
> We had to spend a week back and forth with
We've had similar out of a pen test that noted we were using nginx for some of our internal dashboards/tools and the version running (1.18 IIRC) was officially EOLed upstream so a high security issue.
They initially wouldn't listen to the argument that we use stable/LTS Debian/Ubuntu release only, and those hold functionality stable (which is one of the key reasons to use them) and backport security updates where relevant. We pointed them at the package changelogs and they were convinced that there was still a vulnerability not patched but for some reason didn't want to tell us which, when we finally got that out of them it turned out to be one that was introduced in a later version so was never relevant in the first place for the one the stable repositories included.
You would think a penetration testing company would have a clue about something so common…
- raesene9 4y agoIf it was an unauthenticated test, I'm not surprised. Raising findings off of banners is notoriously error prone, but pentesters often err on the side of raising things that are dubious rather than leaving them out. If it was a credentialed review, you'd have hoped their scanners would plugin to the appropriate debian/ubuntu security database and give you a less false positive prone set of findings (although with debian based stuff you still have the problem of scanners reporting the "unfixed" set sometimes)