As a digital security consultant when is it 'ok' to use tools someone else made (dumb to reinvent the wheel, right?) and when should I make my own?
|
|
If it ain't broke, why fix it? If it's broke, contribute to the project and help fix it for everyone else too. |
|||
|
|
|
Making bad tools is easy, especially in the security arena. Making good tools is actually quite difficult and requires a deep understanding of the problem at hand. I would say stick with the pre-made tools until you know enough to actually improve them or replace them with something better. I've been in computing for almost 40 years, and I know that my understanding of most security threats is not good enough to "go it alone." |
|||
|
The best security tools are the ones which are transparent, open source and used and reviewed by lots of experts. So for example PGP encryption is used by lots of people and hs been reviewed by lots of experts. It would be a bad decision to use some home encryption algorithm that you wrote yourself simply because they would not be reviewed and tested by a wide viriety of independent experts. |
|||
|
|
|
If I were hiring a consultant, I'd like to see someone who actively contributes to the open source tools. This goes for security, test frameworks, whatever. If someone were using their own tools, I'd see this more as a high value add enterprise sale rather than pure consulting, which means a lot more money in the long run. |
|||
|
|
|
As every expert independent of the area of expertise security expert should be able to use both: Advantages of pre-made tools.
Advantages of self-made tools.
|
|||
|
|
