Also, I hope you are not switching to the open source side just because of monetary reasons.
If you were concerned that QualysGuard was not providing you the security you need, you should run both OpenVAS and QualysGuard in tandem until you know for a fact you are not sacrificing the security of your network for a couple grand a year. Do not expect to magically switch over to a new scanner and still have the same coverage you had before. I love OpenVAS, but there is a reason Nexpose and QualysGuard cost what they do. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Brandon Perry <[email protected]>wrote: > Do not take the number of vulns reported as a true number. I won't name > names, but some scanners will report each vuln fixed by a KB, as opposed to > saying you are missing the patch KB-whatever. > > What is more important is if the information given to you is accurate. If > scanner X says that you are vuln to A, B, and C and these are fixed by > KB-N, but another simply says you are missing KB-N, they are reporting the > same info. One has just taken the tactic of reporting each vuln in a patch > as opposed to saying you are missing patch N. > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Jagannath Naidu < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 3 February 2014 18:30, Jan-Oliver Wagner < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mittwoch, 11. Dezember 2013, Jagannath Naidu wrote: >>> > I was a QualysGuard user and decided to use the opensource. >>> > I am new to openvas and have been checking the functionality of it. >>> > I installed the openvas on a centos minimal, 64 bit. It works well and >>> > results are good. >>> > >>> > The only problem where I am stuck is that it shows very less details >>> when >>> > scanning any MS Windows target. >>> > >>> > As compared to the QualysGuard scan it is negligible. >>> > >>> > Do I have to install any commercial feeds or am I missing any >>> configuration. >>> >>> The latter. The question is: which one? >> >> >> Sorry for the late reply, its an windows XP. version 2002, SP 2 >> >> >>> >>> > When I scan a RHEL target, it shows results about 160(96 high, 27 med, >>> 45 >>> > low, and remaining logs) >>> > When I scan a Windows target, it shows 40 (1 high, 3 med, 4 low). >>> >>> It'll be more interesting to compare scans of Windows with two different >>> products. >>> >>> The results are almost same, this time it was windows 7 pro. >> >> >>> > I provided smb credentials for windows target and ssh credentials for >>> linux >>> > target. >>> >>> Have you checked the log output of NVT 1.3.6.1.4.1.25623.1.0.90023 >>> (SMB Authorization) on whether a successful login happened? >> >> >> NVT: Vulnerabilities in SMB Could Allow Remote Code Execution (958687) - >> Remote<http://192.168.122.238:9392/omp?cmd=get_nvts&oid=1.3.6.1.4.1.25623.1.0.900233&token=0e2f2a1e-1bf3-4a9f-9901-a4bd17eb4901> >> (OID: >> 1.3.6.1.4.1.25623.1.0.900233<http://192.168.122.238:9392/omp?cmd=get_nvts&oid=1.3.6.1.4.1.25623.1.0.900233&token=0e2f2a1e-1bf3-4a9f-9901-a4bd17eb4901> >> ) >> (CVSS: 10.0 >> >> >> >> Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner | ++49-541-335084-0 | http://www.greenbone.net/ >>> Greenbone Networks GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück | AG >>> Osnabrück, HR B 202460 >>> Geschäftsführer: Lukas Grunwald, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openvas-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> >>> https://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks & Regards >> >> B Jagannath >> +919871324006 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openvas-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss >> > > > > -- > http://volatile-minds.blogspot.com -- blog > http://www.volatileminds.net -- website > -- http://volatile-minds.blogspot.com -- blog http://www.volatileminds.net -- website
_______________________________________________ Openvas-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss
