The findings from your automated pentesting may seem satisfactory, but this could be misleading. As organizations continue to rely on automated tools, the number of new findings tends to decrease over time. This stability is often interpreted as security by leadership, although this is not always the case. The Hacker News, in collaboration with Picus Security, is hosting a webinar to address these hidden risks.
Understanding the Limits of Automated Pentesting
Autumn Stambaugh and Can Yüceel, alongside host James Azar, will discuss the boundaries of automated pentesting tools and how to bridge the gaps they leave. Interested parties are encouraged to register for this insightful session. A key issue arises when pentest reports appear flat; this can indicate either resolved vulnerabilities or the limits of the tool’s visibility. Automated pentesting is frequently mistaken for comprehensive security validation, but it only covers one aspect.
Picus Security categorizes validation into six surfaces, one of which is the attack path, highlighting whether an attacker can navigate through an environment. However, this leaves several critical areas unchecked, such as detection rules and cloud configurations. Fine-tuning the tool may enhance its performance but cannot transform it into a comprehensive validation solution.
Identifying Overlooked Security Risks
Many teams fail to recognize that while a tool may demonstrate potential exploits, it does not confirm whether security measures like SIEM or EDR have responded. For instance, it might show that credential dumping is possible, but not whether it was blocked or logged. This creates a false sense of security, mistaking accessible paths for defended ones.
The webinar aims to highlight this risk. When breach and attack simulations are used, they evaluate whether controls respond to known behaviors, such as blocking or detecting them. In contrast, automated pentesting focuses on how far an attacker can penetrate, creating a misleading gap in reports without comprehensive validation.
Bridging the Validation Gap
The core challenge is in prioritization. If a tool identifies a path but controls already neutralize it, the urgency may be overstated. Without thorough control validation, risk assessments are incomplete. The webinar will guide participants on transforming findings into a prioritized list based on actual control responses.
Automated pentesting should not be the sole validation strategy. This session will address the primary gaps to consider first. Interested participants should register for the webinar to gain valuable insights.
This article is a contribution from our esteemed partners. Follow us on Google News, Twitter, and LinkedIn for more exclusive content.
