A security consultant, using a vulnerability scanner known for its frequently updated community feeds, has completed a scan of a client's internal network. The initial report lists numerous critical vulnerabilities tied to outdated software versions on several servers. To ensure the final report is accurate and actionable, which of the following is the most effective next step for the consultant to take?
Confirm the scanner's feeds were updated prior to the scan, and then manually verify the software versions on the affected servers.
Re-run the scan using a different commercial vulnerability scanner to compare the findings before proceeding.
Filter out all 'outdated software' vulnerabilities, as these are often informational and can be patched later.
Assume the scanner is correct and recommend immediate patching for all flagged vulnerabilities to save time on validation.
The most effective and fundamental step in validating vulnerability scan results is to ensure the scanner is working with the latest information (updated feeds) and then to perform manual verification on the target hosts. This process confirms whether the flagged vulnerabilities, such as outdated software, are true positives or false positives. Recommending patches without validation is irresponsible. Filtering out alerts without investigation is also poor practice, as 'outdated software' can represent a critical risk. While using a second scanner can be part of a mature validation process, the primary and most direct validation method is to check the host itself.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
Why is it important to confirm the scanner’s feed is updated?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does cross-checking flagged versions with host software details improve accuracy?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What happens if advisories are ignored without verification?