*This wasn't meant to be live just yet!*

I scheduled all draft posts. I became ill and wasn't available to stop it from posting.

I was cleaning out my bookmarks, de-cluttering twitter favourites and closing a few tabs. Re-saw a few 'hidden gems' as well as repeating finding links for people, so I thought I would try and 'dump' them all in one place.

These are roughly sorted, if you're wanting something better - I highly recommend having a look at the pentest-bookmarks.

This list will be updated from time to time!

I'm a university student trying to assess the current situation of digital security (both home users & businesses).

By taking a couple of minutes to anonymously fill in this survey (up to 24 questions), you would benefit my project greatly.

No personal or identifiable information will be collected.

All the results will be added up, analysed as a whole and released afterwards.

*For every 10 people who complete this survey, I will personally donate £1 (Up to £50) to Hackers For Charity (www.hackersforcharity.org).*

Direct link: here (survey is now closed)

I will release the results at a later date (along with project it was intended for!).

As its for a current piece of university work, I don't wish to make it public until it has been marked.

Note: If you're looking for methods on "how to bypass anti-virus software" - this page isn't for you. This is an analysis about the effects of using the differences in Metasploit framework encoders:

• How do different encoders compare with the detection rate of anti-virus?
• Is there a relationship with increasing the encoded amount of time? Does it get detected less?
• By altering the payload, will this have a affect?
• If a different "template" is used, would it still detected the same amount of times?
• Does encoding make the file detected more than if it wasn't encoded at all?
• Will the payload's operating system matter?
• Which anti-virus product was able to detect the most (and the least) amount?

A python script automate uploading files & getting the results from VirusTotal.com with their API system.

Holynix is a series of operating systems with purposely designed weakness(es) left inside. The aim of them is to go from "boot-to-root"; the user has to try and get a shell with the highest user privilege they can reach.

The Holynix series is another collection of operating systems with purposely crafted weakness(es) in them. The usual aim of a "boot-to-root"; try and get a shell with the highest user privilege you can.

A python script to show the process of encrypting & decrypting using "Data Encryption Standard" (DES) step by step.

Figure 1 - "Variable" Flowchart

It's time for round 3 with Kioptrix's "Vulnerable-By-Design" series. Normal goal of "boot-to-root", by any means possible.

The target was fully compromised with a mixture of; SQL injection, re-used credentials and poorly configured setting. After gaining root access, to extent the video two methods of backdooring the system were installed as well as an alternative idea to escape privileges.

The "vulnerable-by-design" series De-ICE, has released another challenge. However, it's in two different parts - which makes the naming more confusing! This is De-ICE level 1-disk 3, the second half, and it should not be confused with "version a" (de-ice-1.120-1.0a.iso aka Level 1-Disk 3-Release 1-Version A), as these are NOT the same challenge - it's a completely independent challenge.

De-ICE has another challenge in its "vulnerable-by-design" series - even though the naming gets more confusing with every release! It's been a while since the last release, level 2-disk 1 (back in 2007). The students of "HackingDojo" were challenged to put together their own exploitable LiveCD, and it was released under the de-ice name. This is "version a", and should be not confused with "version B" (de-ice-1.120-1.0b.iso aka Level 1-Disk 3-Release 1-Version B), as these are NOT the same challenge - it's a different setup.