Having delved into both automated and manual penetration testing, we’re now in a position to explore the interplay between these two methodologies. How can organizations balance these two approaches to achieve optimal results? That’s the focus of today’s blog.
Understanding that automated and manual pentesting are complementary, not competitive, is a vital first step. Automated tools offer speed, efficiency, and consistency, making them excellent for initial vulnerability scanning and identifying low-hanging fruit. They can quickly analyze large systems, delivering an initial overview of an organization’s security posture.
On the other hand, manual pentesting brings depth and nuance to the process. Human experts can understand complex system behaviors, business logic, and custom applications in a way that automated tools can’t. They can identify vulnerabilities that require a sophisticated understanding of the system and validate the results from automated tools, ensuring false positives are filtered out.
Striking the right balance between these two approaches is an art and a science, depending largely on the organization’s unique context. Factors to consider include the size and complexity of the systems, the available expertise, the specific objectives of the pentesting process, and budget constraints.
While there’s no one-size-fits-all answer, a general rule of thumb suggests that around 30-40% of the penetration testing process can be automated, while 60-70% will require manual effort. However, as technologies evolve and automated tools become more sophisticated, this balance may shift.
Regardless of the exact proportions, the key is to leverage the strengths of both approaches. By using automated and manual testing in concert, organizations can achieve a comprehensive, in-depth understanding of their cybersecurity posture, enabling them to build robust defenses against cyber threats.
This appendix delves into some of the advanced and specialized areas of penetration testing that often require a balance between automated and manual methods:
Cryptography Testing: Automated tools can rapidly identify weak SSL/TLS ciphers or sensitive information sent via unencrypted channels. However, the complex nature of cryptographic implementations often requires manual testing to fully understand the security posture. Manual testing might involve analyzing how cryptographic controls are implemented in an application or protocol, evaluating their effectiveness, and determining whether they align with industry best practices.
Denial of Service Testing: Automated tools are invaluable for simulating high loads and testing how the system handles stress, potentially uncovering DoS vulnerabilities. Yet, manual analysis is often critical in these situations. It helps in identifying the specific components of a system that may be more susceptible to these attacks, enabling a more nuanced understanding of potential weaknesses and attack vectors.
Web Services Testing: Automated scanning tools are typically employed for large-scale identification of issues such as weak XML structure. However, the complexity and intricacies of modern web services often necessitate manual testing. Manual methods are capable of identifying logical vulnerabilities, analyzing intricate workflows, and evaluating other issues that automated tools may overlook.
By demonstrating the utility of both automated and manual methods in these complex areas, we underline the necessity of a balanced approach to penetration testing. Each method has its strengths and limitations, and leveraging the best of both ensures a more robust and comprehensive testing process.
Did you find this series on balancing automated and manual pentesting useful? Please subscribe to our newsletter for more insights and information!
