Flag not generated about secgen HOT 3 CLOSED

The audit scenario is not meant to have flags. It aims for some realism. If you want a scenario that gives you flags try the CTF scenarios, such as flawed_fortress_1.xml.

The intention for the audit scenario is to conduct a pen test. We get students to write a formal pen test report.

from secgen.

Yeah I get it. But still it would be great if this specific non generated flag would not show in scenario.xml/marker.xml files as that is confusing. I was also a bit dissapointed because scenario you could not remotely attack the desktop computer as there was not any remotely exploitable vulnerability in that (it just had lightdm auto login). I don't get it what is the purpose of desktop VM. I feel there should be some specific target you go after as that usually you do in a pentest. You try to get accesss to some data.

Also one other thing it would be nice if there was a scenario that mixed a range of OSes like they do in OSCP exams/labs.

from secgen.

The desktop is there as part of the scenario for the sake of completeness. Really I would like to expand this scenario significantly to include more internal servers etc, to reflect what is found in real organisations. It would be unusual for a desktop VM to have many running vulnerable services. One idea for further development is to have client side vulnerabilities, such as vulnerable versions of Adobe Reader, and have the VM automate execution of email attachments, so you can launch phishing attacks against the system.

We have initial support for Windows VMs, but we severely lack content (SecGen modules) for Windows at this point... Also it should be easy to add more Linux base boxes, but that does require a fair amount of manual testing of our existing modules, and when we deploy to cloud providers we need to replicate each base box there too.

Thanks again for your interest in the project, and for raising the issues -- it helps the project to know your experiences and help raise things that could use further attention.

Mentioning @thomashaw, just so he sees this conversation on the closed issue.

Thanks again, @fsacer.

from secgen.