Comments on: "New" Google Hacking Tool? http://www.mikeandrews.com/2008/02/25/new-google-hacking-tool/ Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:01:55 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Notes from RSA2008 | Mike Andrews http://www.mikeandrews.com/2008/02/25/new-google-hacking-tool/comment-page-1/#comment-110 Notes from RSA2008 | Mike Andrews Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:51:50 +0000 http://www.mikeandrews.com/2008/02/25/new-google-hacking-tool/#comment-110 [...] the pleasure of chatting with on numerous occations (who also I’m a big fan of, even though I linked to one of his posts and [mis]abeled him as a "fan" - once again, apologies if that was taken [...] [...] the pleasure of chatting with on numerous occations (who also I’m a big fan of, even though I linked to one of his posts and [mis]abeled him as a "fan" – once again, apologies if that was taken [...]

]]> By: Mike http://www.mikeandrews.com/2008/02/25/new-google-hacking-tool/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Mike Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:34:49 +0000 http://www.mikeandrews.com/2008/02/25/new-google-hacking-tool/#comment-67 Thanks Br0d and jon - I do get both of your comments. Sure, it's a beta tool and has lots of room for improvement. However, my initial reactions were "why" and "why now"? I'm not going to suck up to CdC or anything - as I've said above, and many times before, I really like these guys and they certainly know their stuff. I was just surprised in the number of news stories/articles it's been generating when, to my mind at least, it's not anything "new". If it was an "improvement" over existing tech, then I'd be right on it giving praise (as I may do later), but as the features seem to stand right now, I think my initial post was right - it's a "huh" moment for me - and not (as you might have initially thought) a slight. I'll be giving it a go later next week when I have some time, so if I have anything more to add (or even retract my words - it has been known ;)), I'll do it here. Thanks Br0d and jon – I do get both of your comments. Sure, it’s a beta tool and has lots of room for improvement. However, my initial reactions were “why” and “why now”?

I’m not going to suck up to CdC or anything – as I’ve said above, and many times before, I really like these guys and they certainly know their stuff. I was just surprised in the number of news stories/articles it’s been generating when, to my mind at least, it’s not anything “new”. If it was an “improvement” over existing tech, then I’d be right on it giving praise (as I may do later), but as the features seem to stand right now, I think my initial post was right – it’s a “huh” moment for me – and not (as you might have initially thought) a slight.

I’ll be giving it a go later next week when I have some time, so if I have anything more to add (or even retract my words – it has been known ;) ), I’ll do it here.

]]> By: jon http://www.mikeandrews.com/2008/02/25/new-google-hacking-tool/comment-page-1/#comment-66 jon Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:17:14 +0000 http://www.mikeandrews.com/2008/02/25/new-google-hacking-tool/#comment-66 Mike, I haven't run it, so have no idea whether it comes up to their usual standards (bear in mind that it's a beta) -- or how it compares with Site Digger. That's not the point I was trying to make. br0d'scomment captures the important aspect: there's plenty of room for improvement. It sounds like Site Digger and others haven't moved forward to include the kinds of things br0d's talking about, just as commercial Black Orifice equivalents were languishing before cDc's release. Even if Goolag winds up just as one of many, it may well similarly catalyze this market niche. jon Mike, I haven’t run it, so have no idea whether it comes up to their usual standards (bear in mind that it’s a beta) — or how it compares with Site Digger. That’s not the point I was trying to make.

br0d’scomment captures the important aspect: there’s plenty of room for improvement. It sounds like Site Digger and others haven’t moved forward to include the kinds of things br0d’s talking about, just as commercial Black Orifice equivalents were languishing before cDc’s release. Even if Goolag winds up just as one of many, it may well similarly catalyze this market niche.

jon

]]> By: br0d http://www.mikeandrews.com/2008/02/25/new-google-hacking-tool/comment-page-1/#comment-65 br0d Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:37:16 +0000 http://www.mikeandrews.com/2008/02/25/new-google-hacking-tool/#comment-65 I tested this yesterday. I like the interface, but it doesn't use a Google developer API key nor a local proxy like Sensepost Aura, and it treats blocking/CAPTCHA like it's a normal and tolerable occurrence for dork scanning. I think if they can build in something like Aura this tool will be a bit more user friendly than Wikto. Now if someone can add Aura-like functionality and combine a tool like this with the<a href="http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/extreme-search-engine-hacking/" rel="nofollow"> forced spidering and custom search engine </a> discussed by pdp four days ago, then >:) I tested this yesterday. I like the interface, but it doesn’t use a Google developer API key nor a local proxy like Sensepost Aura, and it treats blocking/CAPTCHA like it’s a normal and tolerable occurrence for dork scanning. I think if they can build in something like Aura this tool will be a bit more user friendly than Wikto.

Now if someone can add Aura-like functionality and combine a tool like this with the forced spidering and custom search engine discussed by pdp four days ago, then >:)

]]>