DAST vs Manual Pentesting vs Automated Pentesting: 5 Differences

DAST vs. Manual Pen Testing vs. Automated Pen Testing

1. Web Asset Coverage

• DAST: DAST tools primarily target web applications and associated interfaces (APIs, web services) by simulating attacks against a running application. It is suitable for discovering vulnerabilities in applications accessible over HTTP/HTTPS.
• Manual Pen Testing: This approach is flexible and can cover web applications and network services. Skilled testers can assess assets not typically covered by automated tools, such as legacy systems or applications with custom protocols.
• Automated Pen Testing: Automated tools are designed to scan a range of IP addresses and applications, covering the basic structure of assets but often missing context-specific issues or complex integrations.

2. Level of Automation

• DAST: Fully automated DAST tools require minimal manual configuration, but are typically not designed to run in production environments, because they can have unexpected impacts on production systems.
• Manual Pen Testing: No automation. Security experts manually explore and probe the application or network, making it useful for identifying nuanced vulnerabilities that automated tools might miss.
• Automated Pen Testing: Mostly automated, but some tools offer customization options to refine the testing scope. Automated pen testing can be guided by experts to enhance the coverage or to validate specific findings.

3. Speed and Cost

• DAST: Faster than manual testing, DAST tools provide rapid feedback once an application is deployed. They are typically cost-effective but may require licenses or subscription fees.
• Manual Pen Testing: Slowest and most resource-intensive. The time and cost depend on the complexity of the environment and the expertise of the testers. However, it often yields the most thorough and accurate results for high-stakes applications.
• Automated Pen Testing: Faster than manual testing and cost-effective for frequent scans. However, the depth of coverage may be limited to predefined vulnerabilities and configurations.

4. Depth and Breadth of Testing

• DAST: Broad testing across the surface of the application but lacks deep insight into business logic or internal application structure. DAST is effective for finding common runtime vulnerabilities but does not handle application-specific logic well.
• Manual Pen Testing: Deepest level of analysis. Testers analyze both surface-level and nuanced vulnerabilities, including complex attack chains or flaws in business logic. Manual testing is highly adaptable and provides a thorough evaluation of application security.
• Automated Pen Testing: Broad coverage but limited in depth. Automated pen tests scan for known vulnerabilities across various system components but often miss complex issues like chained attacks or subtle logic flaws.

5. Types of Vulnerabilities Found

• DAST: Common runtime vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and insecure direct object references. Limited in detecting logic flaws or issues that require a deep understanding of the application’s intended behavior.
• Manual Pen Testing: Comprehensive vulnerability identification, including complex issues like business logic flaws, multi-step attacks, and chained vulnerabilities that automated tools typically cannot detect.
• Automated Pen Testing: Effective at identifying standard, known vulnerabilities (e.g., outdated software versions, configuration issues, and missing patches). Less effective for detecting context-specific or complex attack patterns.

How Is DAST Used by Penetration Testers?

Penetration testers often incorporate DAST into their workflow to gain a comprehensive view of an application’s vulnerabilities before diving into more complex, manual assessments. By using DAST tools as a preliminary step, pen testers can automate the detection of common vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and insecure configuration issues. This helps them quickly identify low-hanging fruit that may be immediately exploitable.

Additionally, DAST results provide useful insights into an application’s security posture, highlighting areas that may warrant further examination during manual testing. For instance, if DAST reveals repeated input validation failures across various endpoints, pen testers can target these areas to explore deeper flaws, such as authentication bypass or privilege escalation opportunities that are not apparent through automated scanning alone.

Pen testers also rely on DAST’s continuous scanning capabilities, especially in agile environments where applications are regularly updated. By integrating DAST into CI/CD pipelines, they can automatically scan each new build, maintaining an up-to-date understanding of vulnerabilities that may emerge as the codebase evolves.

Penetration Testing vs. DAST: How to Choose?

When deciding between penetration testing and dynamic application security testing (DAST), organizations need to evaluate their specific security goals, the complexity of their applications, and the resources available.

Keep in mind that penetration tests often use DAST tools, and automated DAST scans can be run alongside penetration tests. So in many cases, organizations will use both penetration testing and DAST.

Security Depth vs. Coverage Needs

If your primary concern is depth and the ability to uncover sophisticated, multi-layered vulnerabilities, penetration testing is the better option. Manual pen testers or PTaaS services can analyze the context of vulnerabilities and combine them to simulate real-world attacks, uncovering complex issues that automated tools often miss.

On the other hand, if broad coverage across all web assets is a priority, especially for large or frequently updated applications, DAST provides a more efficient solution. Automated DAST tools can be run continuously and on a larger scale, identifying common vulnerabilities across the entire application environment without manual intervention.

Frequency of Testing

For organizations with a need for ongoing security monitoring and frequent testing, especially in fast-moving DevOps or agile environments, DAST is ideal. Integrated into CI/CD pipelines, DAST allows for regular scans with minimal disruption, ensuring vulnerabilities are detected early in the development process.

Penetration testing, being more manual and resource-intensive, is typically conducted less frequently. Manual pentesting is often carried out quarterly or annually, and while PTaaS can be performed much more often, it is still far more resource intensive than a simple DAST scan.

Risk Appetite and Compliance Requirements

Organizations in highly regulated industries or with strict compliance requirements might need both DAST and penetration testing. Penetration testing provides the depth needed to meet rigorous standards, ensuring that even the most complex vulnerabilities are addressed. DAST, on the other hand, can ensure continuous compliance by catching common vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis.

For organizations with lower risk tolerance or those focused on ensuring security for rapidly changing applications, combining both methods can offer the most comprehensive protection.

Budget and Resource Allocation

Cost is a significant consideration when choosing between DAST and penetration testing. DAST can be more cost-effective due to its automated nature and ability to scan repeatedly without additional human effort. This makes it a good choice for organizations with tighter budgets or those needing frequent tests.

Penetration testing, with its reliance on skilled human testers, is more expensive and resource-heavy. It’s typically reserved for high-risk systems or for organizations with the budget to invest in deep security assessments.

Automated Penetration Testing with CyCognito

CyCognito built its external attack surface management (EASM) and security testing platform to replicate an attacker’s thought processes and workflows.

CyCognito automates the first phase of offensive cyber operation with deep reconnaissance and active security testing. Pen testing and red teaming staff are able to immediately focus on meaningful activities that require human decision.

With CyCognito, your teams have access to:

• Continuously updated reconnaissance information – Dynamic updates to your full asset inventory across all business divisions and brands – seed information and manual updates are not required.
• Automatic black box penetration test results – Over 30,000 penetration testing modules applied to full inventory of exposed network infrastructure and web applications.
• Integrated threat intelligence and remediation planning services – Guidance on which assets to test first, with evidence.
• Workflows built for collaboration – Create subteams dedicated to specific pen testing and red team staff. Organizations and assets can be assigned per team based on predefined scopes. Instant access to what to test next.

With CyCognito your offensive security teams can pivot faster to human-led exploitation-based tests:

• Reduce time consuming and tedious reconnaissance work
• Reach your ideal security testing goals
• Reduce burnout and get better results
• Get more ROI out of bug bounty programs
• Learn more about CyCognito for automated security testing