Notes From Addressing Penetration Test Findings
I have recently read a number of PenTest reports and investigated and fixed the vulnerabilities.
In the Pentest reports I have read it has been common for the first section to be about identifying the technology the application is written in, this is used to make some initial suggestions on shortcomings in the application.
ASP.NET CORE (10)
Wyam (5)
NetlifyCMS (5)
AppVeyor (4)
Netlify (4)
tryhackme (3)
VSTO (3)
NGINX (3)
beer (2)
pizza (2)
Recipes (2)
Swagger (2)
Health Checks (2)
The Dog House By Ingrid (1)
Coque (1)
positive/reward based training (1)
llama.cpp (1)
Azure OpenAI (1)
OpenAI (1)
Semantic Kernel (1)
Redline (1)
OpenVAS (1)
snort (1)
cocktails (1)
VS Code (1)
Visual Studio (1)
Git (1)
gpg (1)
PenTest (1)
Squirrel (1)
.NET (1)
Identity (1)
Ooni (1)
PostSharp (1)
LuxFly (1)
Skydiving (1)
Kimai (1)
asp.net (1)
Polly (1)
Simmy (1)
Chaos (1)
Active Directory (1)
Windows Server 2019 (1)
Project Tye (1)
LuxTrust Signing Stick (1)
Gemalto (1)
eIDAS (1)
Electronic Signature (1)
PAdES, CAdES, XAdES (1)
Configuration Options Pattern (1)
Blue Angles (1)
Red Arrows (1)
RAF Hucknall (1)
Statiq (1)
YARP (1)
Reverse Proxy (1)
Swashbuckle (1)
HTTPS (1)
GPO (1)
IE Security (1)
netsh (1)
unbound (1)
dns (1)
Test (1)
Docs (1)
GitHub (1)
Introduction (1)
Service Workers (1)
Notifications API (1)
Push API (1)
PWA (1)
Progressive Web Apps (1)
VAPID (1)
CORS (1)
.NET Core (1)
Encoding (1)
EPPlus (1)
NOPI (1)
SharpZip (1)
Custom Model Binding (1)
CQRS (1)
Azure Service Bus (1)
AMQP (1)
Raspberry Pi (1)
PHP (1)
MySQL (1)
LEMP (1)
RaspberryPi (1)
NUnit (1)