Timeline for Do generic custom scripts avoid detection more than common security applications?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2016 at 22:23 | history | edited | kalina | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed scripting tag http://meta.security.stackexchange.com/questions/2192/lets-get-rid-of-scripting-manually
|
| Dec 22, 2013 at 0:24 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSecurity/status/414551998831534080 | ||
| Dec 21, 2013 at 12:12 | comment | added | Christopher Basinger | I would give you "ups" but my reputation is still too low. | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 12:10 | comment | added | Christopher Basinger | Ah that was the right word. "sockets". That is correct I wrote a port scanner in Java that also created sockets to identify services. Thanks. | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 12:05 | vote | accept | Christopher Basinger | ||
| Dec 21, 2013 at 8:24 | answer | added | user10211 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 8:23 | comment | added | Anorov | Do you mean like using a custom script using C and sockets vs. using nmap, to avoid detection? I would say that for network scanning and reconnaissance: no, generally the behavior will be similar enough to flag both. However, when it comes to exploitation, usually rewriting or obfuscating exploit payloads is a good way to bypass IDSs and AVs. | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 6:54 | history | asked | Christopher Basinger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |