bettercap VS ZAP

you can do this with Bettercap

I've been learning some common lisp, reading through Practical Common Lisp, and it's really neat. People say the good ideas of lisp got adapted in other languages and sure that's true of garbage collection, lambda's and some others, but I'm seeing plenty incredible stuff I haven't seen elsewhere, the condition system that among other things lets you fix and resume your program on exception, real interactive development, flexible object system, macros way more understandable than in other languages with AST macros as in lisp the AST is simple, an expressive dynamic language at high level of ruby and python while being an order of magnitude faster performance. Quicklisp also is really neat, how many other package managers can load new dependencies without restarting your application? And I was learning it with idea that it's not just of historical or hobby interest but legitimately a good choice I can use for new programming projects today for many tasks, but I just learned something that makes it impossible for me to consider, which is complete lack of security of quicklisp. You go to the website and see sha256 hash and PGP signature for quicklisp download, awesome it seems at the security standard you expect for a package manager. But then the actual quicklisp client does all downloads over http with no verification. What this means in practical terms is basically if you use quicklisp, anyone on your local network can easily hack your computer, by MITM (man-in-the-middle) the traffic and serving you backdoored software when you install packages from quicklisp. mitm6 will MITM windows machines on normal networks, bettercap can MITM linux and os x on most networks. Aside from attackers on your local network there's plenty other scenarios, you can go near office of CL using company and set up a open WIFI access point with same name as company wifi and hack their developers, using quicklisp over something like Tor is extremely dangerous at present as it would let the exit node backdoor the packages you download, and then in less likely but still should be protected against scenarios is just if quicklisp.org or any router between you and it is compromised, you can be hacked.

Bettercap – Swiss Army Knife for 802.11, BLE, IPv4 and IPv6 Networks\ (5 comments)

I use ZAP [1] with the OAST add-on for this at the moment. I admit the UX isn't perfect, but it serves my purpose.

If I also want control over the responses (e.g. return a 401 status code for every fifth request), I have a custom extender script [2] for that.

[1]: https://www.zaproxy.org/

Implement tools like Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP for in-depth security scanning of your APIs.

OWASP ZAP

The use of capital punctuation implies a warning? an alert? Would this same response be warranted for Burp which is also a commercial, closed source product?

If this is an issue for some, then ZAP being open source[1] maybe favourable.

That said, Burp is the defacto tool for a reason - it's best in class. Every pentester I know, including myself, has a paid subscription. The fact that it's closed source hasn't been an issue.

[1] https://github.com/zaproxy/zaproxy

Briefly reviewed your product. Seems like OWASP ZAP is your competition: https://www.zaproxy.org/

It runs entirely in the browser so it uses the browser "native" frameworks.

Dynamic analysis involves testing your application while it's running. Tools like OWASP ZAP and Burp Suite can help identify vulnerabilities like SQL injection or Cross-Site Scripting by sending malicious requests to your application and analyzing the responses.

> Lying is not an embellishment or puffery, it's a lie. Engaging a company for a 3 day pen test that's totally insufficient, that would be an embellishment.

I agree, but if the RFP question was phrased "have you done penetration testing?" then that leaves a lot of room for embellishment. If the question is "do you have SOC2 certification?" and you answer "yes" untruthfully, then that is a lie. If they ask for the SOC2 or pentest report and you give them a falsified document, that's where you're (probably) committing fraud.

> One of the most important part of pen tests is that they are external.

AWS/Google/etc have internal security teams doing their pen tests, so no, this isn't true.

> Just doing your job as an engineer and looking for bugs is not a pen test.

What about an engineer spending an afternoon running ZAP[0]?

> It's like saying, "what is an audit really? We have accountants and they check our books for anomalies."

Yeah, which is why you don't just ask a company "do you keep track of your finances?" if you're investing in them, you request external auditors.

[0] https://www.zaproxy.org/

In addition to manual security reviews, you can also implement DevSecOps practices to automate security checks. For example, you can set up a CI/CD pipeline to run static code analysis tools like CodeQL and automatically run penetration tests using tools like OWASP ZAP.

OWASP ZAP (open source)

I would start by installing Burp Suite or OWASP Zap and seeing what the actual messages look like