Hey everyone,
I've been thinking a lot about the ethical boundaries in our field, especially when it comes to penetration testing. We all know that pen testing is crucial for improving security, but where should we draw the line between ethical hacking and going too far?
Let's discuss some scenarios:
1. Testing without explicit permission: Is it ever okay to test a system without written consent if you believe it's for the greater good? What about if you find a vulnerability that could be exploited by malicious actors?
2. Scope creep: What do you do if you discover a vulnerability outside the agreed-upon scope of your test? Do you report it, or stick strictly to the terms of your engagement?
3. Public disclosure: When, if ever, is it appropriate to disclose vulnerabilities publicly? Should there always be a responsible disclosure process, or are there situations where public disclosure is necessary to prompt action?
4. Client confidentiality: How do we balance the need to protect our clients with the need to share knowledge and improve the community's overall security posture?
I'm really curious to hear your thoughts on these issues. What are your personal ethical guidelines when it comes to pen testing? Have you ever faced a situation where you had to make a tough call?
Let's keep the discussion respectful and constructive, and maybe we can all learn something new about the ethical side of our craft.
Looking forward to your insights!
Great post! The ethics of penetration testing is such a critical topic, and I appreciate you bringing it up. I think the question of testing without explicit permission is really tricky. On one hand, if you find a vulnerability that could cause serious harm, it feels like you have a moral obligation to do something about it. But on the other hand, testing without permission can be seen as an attack itself, and could lead to legal trouble.
I wonder if there's a middle ground here - like an anonymous tip line where security researchers could report critical vulnerabilities they've found, without having to actually exploit them? That way, the company could be notified and take action, but the researcher wouldn't be putting themselves at risk.
As for public disclosure, I lean towards always trying responsible disclosure first. But I can see how in some cases, if a company is ignoring a serious issue, going public might be the only way to force their hand. It's a tough call.
What do others think? Have you ever been in a situation where you've had to make a call on these ethical dilemmas? I'd love to hear more perspectives on this.
Great post! The ethics of penetration testing is such a critical topic. I think the question of testing without explicit permission is particularly tricky. On one hand, discovering and reporting vulnerabilities can definitely be for the greater good. But on the other hand, it's a slippery slope - where do we stop?
I once read about a case where a security researcher found a major flaw in a company's system and fixed it without permission, which led to legal trouble despite the good intentions. It made me wonder - should there be a standardized way for ethical hackers to report vulnerabilities safely, even without prior consent?
As for public disclosure, I lean towards always having a responsible disclosure process. But I can see scenarios where public pressure might be needed if a company is dragging its feet on a critical fix. What do you all think - are there ever clear-cut cases where public disclosure is the right move?
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this complex issue!