Hackers Don't Use Automated Pentesting

Automated pentesting is trending right now for it's cost-effectiveness approach to fulfill penetration testing requirements. These tools promise rapid scans and immediate results, making them an appealing choice for organizations aiming to fulfill the pentest control in their security assessments. The only problem is... a hacker could never use a B2B pentest tool as a malicious actor. It does not adequately mimic a real-world attack. The limitations of these tools highlight the need for manual pentesting as the only true method to simulate an external attack.

The Limitations of Automated Pentesting Tools

Automated pentesting tools have significant limitations that prevent them from fully simulating a real attack:

1. Lack of Adaptability: Automated tools operate based on predefined algorithms and scripts. They follow a set pattern and can’t adapt to the unique and dynamic tactics used by real-world attackers. Hackers are not constrained by a tool's limitations—they use creativity and intuition to exploit vulnerabilities in ways that automated tools are not designed to detect.
2. Commoditization and Predictability: Many automated pentesting tools are commoditized products, meaning they are widely available and used across numerous organizations.This widespread use makes it easier for attackers to understand and circumvent the very tools used in automated scans. Since these tools are not open source, their methodologies and limitations are not transparent, which makes them less effective at uncovering sophisticated threats.
3. Superficial Testing: Automated tools are effective at identifying known vulnerabilities and performing repetitive tasks. But they often miss complex issues that require a nuanced understanding of business logic and system behavior. For instance, they may overlook vulnerabilities related to business processes or custom configurations, which are crucial for a real-world attack simulation.
4. Limited Scope and Updates: Automated tools can only scan what they are programmed to detect. They may not uncover hidden or undocumented endpoints, which are often targeted by real attackers. For example, manual testers frequently find hidden admin panels or undocumented APIs that automated tools cannot detect. These hidden components are critical to identifying the full range of potential attack vectors. Zero days are also able to be understood by testers much quicker than a dev team can push an update to an automated pentest SaaS.

The Superiority of Manual Pentesting

Manual pentesting stands out as the only method to truly simulate an external attack due to its depth, adaptability, and human insight. Here’s why manual testing is essential:

1. Realistic Attack Simulation: Manual pentesters employ a range of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to simulate how real attackers would approach a target. They use their expertise to exploit vulnerabilities in ways that automated tools cannot, including chaining multiple vulnerabilities together to maximize impact.
2. Human Intuition and Creativity: Skilled pentesters bring creativity and intuition to the assessment process. They think like attackers, adapting their methods based on the system’s specific architecture and business logic.
3. Discovery of Hidden Vulnerabilities: Manual testing excels at uncovering hidden or undocumented components that automated tools might miss. Pentesters actively search for these hidden endpoints, such as admin panels or undocumented APIs, which can be critical entry points for real-world attacks.
4. Contextual Understanding: Manual testers analyze the context and business logic of applications, providing insights into how vulnerabilities could be exploited in a real-world scenario. This understanding allows them to assess the potential impact of vulnerabilities more accurately and offer tailored recommendations for remediation.

‍

While automated pentesting tools offer valuable benefits in terms of cost, they fall short of mimicking the complexity and unpredictability of a real-world attack. The commoditized nature of these B2B tools, combined with their limited adaptability and scope, highlights their failure in fully simulating external threats. Manual pentesting remains the gold standard for a realistic attack simulation, providing the depth, creativity, and contextual understanding needed to uncover and address vulnerabilities effectively.