Defend Your Business: Choosing the Right Penetration Testing type

Penetration testing is a crucial component of a comprehensive cybersecurity program. Penetration Testing helps organizations identify security weaknesses in their computer systems, networks, and applications. It’s like a security check-up for your digital infrastructure, where a team of experts tries to find vulnerabilities that hackers could use to gain unauthorized access. The experts use a combination of automated tools and manual techniques to simulate attacks and attempt to penetrate your defenses.  

Companies can choose between different types of penetration testing, including Manual Penetration Testing, time-boxed manual testing and automated testing. In this blog post, we will explore the benefits and downsides of each method and explain why one suits best based on the objectives sought why it’s essential to prioritize risk and remediation by process, not vulnerability. 

Manual Penetration Testing  

Manual penetration testing is a time-consuming process that requires skilled professionals to identify and exploit vulnerabilities in a system or network. It is a comprehensive approach that simulates real-world cyberattacks and provides a thorough assessment of an organization’s security posture. Manual penetration testing is the most reliable and effective method, as it involves human judgment and problem-solving skills.  Skilled penetration testing can identify more complex vulnerabilities that are often missed by automated scanners due to the complexity of the environment tested.  

Manual testing is for now the only type of testing that allow exploit chaining of two or more vulnerabilities from one or multiple systems to compromise the overall process. In this type of assessment penetration testers mainly use automated tools only to perform checks from testing standards such as OWASP ASVS or those provided by National Institute of Standards and Technology. One commonly overlooked aspect is that the tests described in these documents are not comprehensive. That’s where the experience and creativity of the tester adds value. Manual penetration testing is beneficial for companies that require a high level of assurance and risk mitigation. 

Automated Penetration Testing 

Automated penetration testing is a faster and more cost-effective alternative to manual testing. It uses software tools to scan for vulnerabilities and attempt to exploit them automatically. Automated testing is useful for identifying common and low-level vulnerabilities that are easy to find and fix. However, it is not as effective as manual testing in identifying complex vulnerabilities, such as zero-day exploits.  

It is best used in combination with manual testing to provide a more comprehensive assessment of a system or network. This method is best suited for identifying low-risk vulnerabilities, such as misconfigurations or missing patches, and can be used regularly to detect new vulnerabilities that may arise over time. Automated tests can miss certain types of vulnerabilities, and their effectiveness depends on the quality of the tool and the expertise of the tester using it. 

Due to the fact that automated penetration testing tools may uncover and exploit high or critical risk vulnerabilities a false sense of security may arise from those using them. Automated Penetration testing is best used as a complement to manual testing, rather than a replacement. 

Time-Boxed Penetration Testing 

Time-boxed penetration testing involves limiting the amount of time spent on a penetration test. This approach is often used to reduce costs or when time is limited. While it can be an effective method for testing, it has a lot of downsides. A time-boxed test may not be able to assess all areas of the system or fully evaluate the depth and severity of vulnerabilities.  

Incomplete testing may give a false sense of security to the company, leading to potential security breaches that can have severe consequences. Therefore, while time-boxed manual penetration testing could sometimes be a useful tool, it should not be the only type of testing conducted by a company. 

Time-boxed penetration testing it is suitable for applications, systems, or networks that do not play a crucial role in the day-to-day operations of the business. For high-risk and mission-critical assets, manual testing is recommended, which involves a more thorough and in-depth evaluation of security vulnerabilities. 

Vulnerability Scanning is not Penetration Testing  

Vulnerability scanning is often mistaken for penetration testing, but it is not the same thing. Vulnerability scanning is an automated process that scans a system or network for known vulnerabilities. It is a useful tool for identifying technical vulnerabilities, such as missing patches, configuration weaknesses, and software bugs. However, it is not effective in identifying human or process vulnerabilities, which are equally important to a company’s security posture. Vulnerability scanning is not the same as penetration testing and should not be relied upon as the only testing method. Furthermore, a vulnerability scan should be part of any penetration testing methodology. 

Prioritize Risk and Remediation by Process, not Vulnerability 

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to what penetration testing method is best, as it depends on various factors such as the organization’s size, industry, type of assets, and the level of criticality of their processes and type of data handled. However, it is generally recommended to use a combination of automated and manual testing methods for a comprehensive and effective approach. 

Ultimately, a company should use a combination of automated and manual testing methods based on the level of criticality of their processes and their underlying assets. It is essential to prioritize risk and remediation by process, not vulnerability. This means that companies should focus on fixing underlying security issues, rather than just addressing specific vulnerabilities. A process-based approach is more effective in improving an organization’s security posture, as it addresses the root causes of vulnerabilities. A vulnerability-based approach can lead to a false sense of security, as it only addresses individual vulnerabilities and not the overall security posture.  

We highly recommend that in the decision matrix for choosing the right type of penetration test the exposure of the assets assigned to the process is taken into consideration. For example: a company blog that does not hold customer data but has interfaces with internal system should be assigned a higher risk rating that that of an internet facing asset with zero relations with internal resources.  

For low-risk processes, automated testing may suffice, while assets sustaining critical and high-risk processes should be tested with manual testing to ensure a more thorough evaluation. 

Our Certifications and Experience 

Our penetration testing team consists of highly experienced professionals, each with over ten years of hands-on experience in critical vulnerability assessments, security posture evaluations, and penetration testing projects. Additionally, our team members maintain significant security certifications, such as Offensive Security Certified Professional (OSCP), Offensive Security Certified Expert (OSCE), Offensive Security Web Expert (OSWE), Offensive Security Certified Professional (OSCP), Offensive Security Exploit Developer (OSED), Offensive Security Wireless Professional (OSWP), Offensive Security Exploit Developer (OSED), Offensive Security Experienced Pentester (OSEP), GIAC Mobile Device Security Analyst (GMOB), GIAC Certified Penetration Tester (GPEN), EC-Council CEH: Certified Ethical Hacker, Licensed Penetration Tester (LPT), and others such as ISC2 – SSCP, CompTIA Pentest+, CompTIA Security+, CompTIA Network Vulnerability Assessment Professional (CNVP), EC-Council Certified Security Analyst (ECSA).  

We’ve completed thousands of penetration testing projects for the clients ranging from high-tech startups to financial organizations, healthcare entities, retail and others. As a penetration testing provider, CybrOps has a dedicated Security Research group, a team of security experts that focus on development of new hacking techniques and tools that we use in our engagements. 

Our extensive experience in manual testing in highly complex environments allows us to provide our clients with comprehensive penetration testing services that identify critical vulnerabilities and help them achieve and maintain robust security postures.