Please Answer Both Questions Within 250 Words

Please Answer Both Questions With No More Than 250 Words For Each

Our task in this week’s conference is to discuss, mobile phones (including smart phones and tablets). with an emphasis on an auditing system for such phones/devices. The solution space should be applicable to phones brought to work as well as to phones that are not brought to work. Let’s have a robust and lively dialogue with respect to the following questions: What do you need to log/audit in a mobile phone? Why? How is that different from auditing a desktop/laptop/server? What tools, methodologies, or frameworks are available to assist us in detecting vulnerabilities and auditing issues in the mobile phone environment? Is privacy sufficiently catered for? If not, how it could be addressed better?

Paper For Above instruction

Auditing mobile phones necessitates capturing a wide array of data points to ensure security and compliance without compromising user privacy. Key aspects include application activity logs, network connections, device configurations, access records, and permissions granted to applications. Monitoring app permissions is essential to identify overreach, potentially malicious behaviors, or privacy infringements. Additionally, logs of system events, location data (if applicable), and user authentication activities are vital. These logs help detect anomalous patterns indicating intrusion, malware, or unauthorized access. Unlike traditional desktop or server audits, mobile phone auditing must account for device portability, varied operating systems, and constrained resources. Mobile devices often operate with limited access to certain system files, and user privacy laws restrict detailed monitoring, necessitating specialized tools that respect user privacy while ensuring security. Tools such as Mobile Security Framework (MobSF), OWASP Mobile Security Testing Guide, and commercial MDM solutions enable vulnerability detection, code analysis, and compliance auditing. Frameworks like NIST’s guidelines provide structured audit approaches. However, privacy concerns remain paramount; implementing encryption, minimal data collection, user consent, and transparent policies are crucial improvements. Enhancing privacy could involve contextual permission prompts, decentralized data storage, and differential privacy techniques. Overall, a balanced approach integrating technical controls with privacy rights ensures effective mobile device auditing while maintaining user trust.

Pros and Cons of NESSUS Vulnerability Scanner

Pros of NESSUS include its comprehensive vulnerability detection capabilities, extensive database of known vulnerabilities, and user-friendly interface that facilitates ease of use for security professionals. It supports a wide range of operating systems, applications, and network devices, making it versatile for various environments. NESSUS also offers customizable scans, detailed reporting, and integration with other security tools, enabling proactive vulnerability management. Additionally, its regular updates ensure the latest threats are accounted for, enhancing security accuracy.

Cons of NESSUS include its relatively high cost, which can be prohibitive for smaller organizations or individual users. The tool can generate a high volume of false positives, requiring manual verification and additional effort. Its comprehensive scans may also impact network performance and system resources, causing potential disruptions during operation. Furthermore, NESSUS’s extensive features and complexity may present a steep learning curve for new users, necessitating training. Lastly, reliance solely on vulnerability scanning without complementing it with other security measures may limit overall security effectiveness, as it primarily identifies known issues rather than preventing future threats.

References

• Baldini, A., et al. (2020). "Mobile Application Security Testing Frameworks." Journal of Cyber Security Technology, 4(2), 101-123.
• OWASP Mobile Security Testing Guide. (2021). OWASP Foundation. Retrieved from https://owasp.org/www-project-mobile-security-testing-guide/
• NIST. (2018). "Guidelines for Mobile Device Security." Special Publication 800-124 Revision 2.
• Neira, M., & Valera, M. (2019). "Automated Vulnerability Assessment in Mobile Devices." IEEE Security & Privacy, 17(4), 51-58.
• Tenable. (2023). "Nessus Vulnerability Scanner." Official Product Documentation. Retrieved from https://www.tenable.com/products/nessus
• Santos, D., et al. (2021). "Enhancing Privacy in Mobile Security Audits." Computers & Security, 102, 102124.
• Huang, Y., et al. (2022). "Frameworks for Mobile Security Testing." Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 188, 103124.
• Verma, A., & Kaur, J. (2019). "Mobile Device Forensics and Vulnerability Analysis." International Journal of Computer Science and Engineering, 7(4), 308-312.
• MobSF. (2023). "Mobile Security Framework." Open-source Project. Retrieved from https://github.com/MobSF/Mobile-Security-Framework-MobSF
• Williams, P., & Jones, S. (2018). "Vulnerability Assessment Tools Comparison." Cybersecurity Review, 7(3), 45-60.