Per reports by 5 Common Cybersecurity Threats Found in a Penetration Test, penetration testing is gaining popularity. It is estimated to reach a USD 4.5 billion market by 2025.
What is Automated Penetration Testing?
Automated penetration testing tools check systems for known security issues quickly and efficiently, even with a lot of data.
How It Works
The testing tool must be configured to comply with the system’s requirements. Once configured, the tool performs pre-set tests on the system.
These tests look for security flaws by using known attack patterns. Following the scan, the tool generates a report highlighting potential security issues.
Automated testing is fast. It can quickly scan large systems, making it ideal for regular security assessments. It is also usually cheaper because it needs less manual work.
Because of ongoing use of automated tools, they produce similar results. As a result, system security changes are easy to track over time.
However, automated tools can only find known security flaws and might miss more complex or new types of threats. They may also report false positives, which appear problematic but are not threats.
What is Manual Penetration Testing?
Manual penetration testing involves security professionals manually probing and testing the systems.
Experts use their skills to find and exploit weaknesses, mimicking how an attacker would.
How It Works
The process begins with the tester trying to plan their strategy. They learn about the system’s architecture and goals to comprehend its operation.
They then proceed to the testing phase, during which they actively attempt to exploit potential weaknesses.
This hands-on approach enables them to identify weaknesses that automated tools may overlook. Following testing, the expert analyzes the findings and creates a detailed report with methods to improve security.
Manual testing is detailed. Testers use their expertise to identify complex security flaws that automated tools may miss.
Their system-specific approach allows a customized evaluation considering the environment’s unique features.
However, manual testing takes longer and is more expensive due to the need for skilled professionals. The results can vary depending on the tester’s experience and methods, which may impact the consistency of the findings.
Comparison between Automated and Manual Testing
Automated testing is ideal for performing quick and regular scans on large systems. This makes it ideal for ongoing security checks. It aids in the identification of security flaws and keeps a broad perspective on the system’s security.
Manual testing, on the other hand, helps perform detailed security audits. It is helpful for critical systems or complex environments that require a thorough analysis. The human touch gives insight that automated tools cannot, particularly when identifying new or advanced threats and risks.
Here are some areas where manual testing differs from automated testing:
Scope and Depth
- Automated Testing uses tools that can quickly scan many systems and find common vulnerabilities. It’s great for spotting usual issues but might miss more complex or specific problems.
- Manual Testing: This method, conducted by skilled testers, involves a detailed look at the system. Testers use their expertise to find complex or unique vulnerabilities that automated tools might miss. It provides a more thorough and detailed analysis.
Speed and Efficiency
- Automated Testing: These tools work fast and efficiently. They can handle large amounts of data and check many systems quickly, making them ideal for initial scans and routine checks.
- Manual Testing: This takes more time because it involves careful examination and analysis. Although slower, it often uncovers deeper and subtler issues, making the extra time worthwhile.
Cost
- Automated Testing: Generally cheaper. Once you purchase the tool or subscription, you can run tests as often as needed without extra costs. It requires less human effort, keeping costs lower.
- Manual Testing: It is more expensive because it requires hiring skilled testers who spend a lot of time assessing the system. The higher cost reflects the expertise and detailed work involved.
Accuracy and False Positives
- Automated Testing: These tools might give false positives or miss vulnerabilities due to limitations. They may not always provide accurate results, especially in complex environments.
- Manual Testing: Human testers can better identify which findings are real problems and which are false alarms. Their experience allows for more accurate and relevant results, considering the system’s context.
Flexibility and Customization
- Automated Testing: These tools follow fixed patterns and scripts, which can limit their ability to handle unique or custom systems. They may not adapt well to specific configurations or special security measures.
- Manual Testing: Testers can adjust their approach based on what they find, making it highly adaptable. They can tailor their methods to fit the specific details of the tested system or application.
Human Insight:
- Automated Testing: Limited by predefined patterns and known attack vectors, potentially missing novel or advanced threats.
- Manual Testing: Human testers bring intuition and contextual understanding, identifying sophisticated threats and providing insights that automated tools cannot.
Integration and Complementary Use:
- Automated Testing: Best for continuous, broad-level assessments and routine security checks.
- Manual Testing: Complements automated testing by providing in-depth, expert-driven analysis, crucial for high-value or complex environments.
Compliance and Regulation:
- Automated Testing: Provides consistent results that are useful for meeting standard compliance requirements.
- Manual Testing: Essential for meeting more rigorous or specialized regulatory requirements that demand detailed, context-aware assessments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, integrating both automated and manual penetration testing is essential for a robust IT security strategy. Automated testing efficiently scans large systems for common vulnerabilities, offering broad coverage and quick results. It’s ideal for regular checks and routine updates.
Meanwhile, manual testing provides a detailed, hands-on analysis, uncovering complex or unique vulnerabilities that automated tools might miss. This approach is crucial for critical systems and intricate environments.
By combining these methods, organizations achieve a comprehensive security approach. Automated testing ensures speed and wide coverage, while manual testing delivers in-depth and customized insights. They work together to identify and address a wide range of potential risks. This improves the overall system security and resilience to emerging threats.
