Penetration testing, often called pentesting, is a simulated cyberattack on a computer system, network, or application to identify vulnerabilities. This process involves ethical hackers attempting to breach security defenses using various techniques and tools. The objective is to detect weaknesses before malicious entities can exploit them.
Organizations employ pentesters to ensure that their defenses can withstand real-world cyber threats. It is part of a proactive cybersecurity strategy. By conducting regular pentesting, organizations can improve their security measures, adapting to new threat landscapes and reinforcing their defenses against evolving cyber threats.
Another aspect of penetration testing is providing organizations with insights into their security posture. This involves generating reports detailing identified vulnerabilities, risk levels, and recommended remediation steps. Pentesting helps in finding existing vulnerabilities and assesses the effectiveness of security measures currently in place.
Pentesting includes different techniques aimed at assessing various facets of an organization’s security framework.
External penetration testing focuses on identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities in an organization’s internet-facing assets. These may include web servers, mail servers, VPN gateways, and domain name system (DNS) services. The test simulates an attacker with no internal access, replicating threats from hackers operating over the internet.
Testers begin with reconnaissance, mapping out the target's digital footprint using tools to identify open ports, services, and software versions. They then exploit known vulnerabilities, weak configurations, or mismanaged services. Findings from external tests help prioritize patching and improve firewall configurations, intrusion detection systems, and endpoint defenses.
Internal testing simulates attacks from within the organization’s network perimeter. It reflects scenarios such as a disgruntled employee, a compromised internal account, or a malicious actor who has breached external defenses. The tester typically has some level of access, like a standard user or guest, and attempts to escalate privileges or access sensitive data.
This type of testing reveals the damage an insider or internal breach could cause. It evaluates internal controls, such as segmentation between departments, restrictions on access to sensitive systems, and logging of suspicious behavior. Internal pentests often uncover overlooked weaknesses, such as misconfigured user permissions, excessive trust between systems, or lack of monitoring.
Web application testing has a more limited scope than traditional penetration testing. It examines the security of software systems accessible through web browsers. This includes online banking platforms, e-commerce sites, and internal web portals. The test focuses on vulnerabilities defined in the OWASP Top 10, such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), cross-site request forgery (CSRF), and broken authentication.
Testers use a mix of automated scanning and manual testing to explore how input is handled, how sessions are managed, and whether data is properly protected. They simulate attacker behavior to see if unauthorized actions can be performed, such as accessing another user's account or bypassing business logic.
Learn more in our detailed guide to web application penetration testing.
Wireless testing targets the security of wireless networks and devices, including corporate Wi-Fi, employee laptops, mobile devices, and internet of things (IoT) equipment. It evaluates access controls, encryption protocols (like WPA2 or WPA3), and network segmentation.
Testers attempt to intercept traffic, break encryption, create rogue access points, or impersonate legitimate devices. They also assess how well the network defends against unauthorized connections and data leakage.
Social engineering tests explore the human element of security by attempting to deceive or manipulate individuals into revealing sensitive information or performing unsafe actions. Common methods include phishing emails, phone pretexting, baiting with infected USB drives, or impersonation during in-person interactions.
These tests measure how well employees recognize and respond to manipulation attempts. They often reveal gaps in training, poor security awareness, or lack of verification procedures.
Physical penetration testing assesses the effectiveness of physical security controls. Testers attempt to bypass locks, security guards, and surveillance systems to enter restricted areas or access sensitive equipment like servers or network switches.
Scenarios might involve entering into a facility using fake badges, accessing offices after hours, or planting unauthorized devices. This testing helps evaluate real-world vulnerabilities in physical access controls and how well staff enforce security protocols.
While penetration testing and red teaming both evaluate an organization’s security, they differ in scope, objectives, and methodology.
Penetration testing is goal-oriented and scoped to identify and exploit known vulnerabilities in systems, applications, or network segments. It is often time-boxed and focused on breadth over stealth. Pentesters usually operate with some degree of transparency and communicate findings promptly.
Red teaming simulates a full-scale, multi-vector attack mimicking a real adversary. It emphasizes stealth, persistence, and lateral movement to test detection and response capabilities. Red teams do not restrict themselves to predefined targets—they may combine cyber, physical, and social engineering techniques to achieve objectives, such as data exfiltration or domain compromise, often without the defenders’ knowledge.
Penetration testing is structured into several phases to methodically uncover and assess vulnerabilities.
Scoping defines the rules, objectives, and boundaries of a penetration test. This phase ensures alignment between the testing team and the organization on what will be tested, how, and to what extent. It includes identifying in-scope assets such as IP addresses, applications, and facilities, and specifying exclusions to prevent unintended disruptions.
Testers gather technical and business context to understand the environment and identify systems that could impact the organization’s operations. Legal and compliance considerations are addressed, and permissions are documented to authorize testing activities. A well-defined scope prevents ambiguity, limits legal risk, and ensures that the test delivers useful, targeted results.
Reconnaissance, or information gathering, involves collecting as much data as possible about the target systems, networks, and personnel. This phase helps testers map the attack surface and plan their approach by identifying potential weak points.
There are two types of reconnaissance: passive and active. Passive reconnaissance involves indirect methods like analyzing public data, WHOIS records, DNS information, and employee social media profiles. Active reconnaissance engages with the target directly—ping sweeps, port scanning, or service enumeration—to gather technical information. The goal is to compile a detailed profile of the target to inform the scanning and exploitation phases.
In this phase, testers perform detailed scans of the target environment using tools like Nmap, Nessus, or Burp Suite. The objective is to identify open ports, active services, system banners, and software versions. Testers analyze this data to detect known vulnerabilities and misconfigurations.
Scanning is often automated, but manual validation is critical to eliminate false positives. Vulnerability databases, such as CVE and NVD, help map discovered services to potential weaknesses. This step builds a prioritized list of exploitable targets, guiding the next phase of attack simulation.
Learn more in our detailed guide to vulnerability assessment.
Once vulnerabilities are identified, testers attempt to exploit them to gain unauthorized access. Exploits may target web applications, network services, or system misconfigurations. This phase confirms the real-world risk posed by the vulnerabilities, distinguishing theoretical risks from practical ones.
After initial access, testers try to escalate privileges to move from limited user roles to administrative or root-level access. This is achieved by exploiting local flaws, such as weak permissions, unpatched kernel vulnerabilities, or credential reuse. The goal is to demonstrate the impact of a breach—whether data can be exfiltrated, systems can be controlled, or further internal movement is possible.
Post-exploitation involves maintaining access, assessing the value of compromised assets, and evaluating lateral movement opportunities. Testers explore the extent of control they can establish, such as accessing databases, emails, or internal tools. They also check if activities were logged or detected, giving insights into the organization’s monitoring and response capabilities.
Finally, the results are compiled into a detailed report. This includes exploited vulnerabilities, attack paths, risk levels, and recommendations for remediation. Reports often separate technical findings from executive summaries, enabling both technical teams and decision-makers to take informed actions.
Dima Potekhin, CTO and Co-Founder of CyCognito, is an expert in mass-scale data analysis and security. He is an autodidact who has been coding since the age of nine and holds four patents that include processes for large content delivery networks (CDNs) and internet-scale infrastructure.
In my experience, here are tips that can help you better strengthen your penetration testing program beyond what’s already covered:
Download this white paper to uncover the challenges with pen testing in reducing external risk, how automation can help pen testers and red teams work more efficiently, and how CyCognito can add value.
Below are approximate cost ranges for different types of penetration testing. These figures are general estimates; actual costs can vary based on project requirements.
Key cost drivers include:
Learn more in our detailed guide to penetration testing costs.
With varying needs and resources, organizations can choose from different pentesting solutions to secure their systems.
Manual penetration testing is conducted by professional ethical hackers who simulate real-world attacks using a combination of technical knowledge, creativity, and experience. This method is especially effective for identifying complex vulnerabilities that automated tools often miss, such as business logic flaws, privilege escalation paths, and chained attack vectors. Manual testing provides depth and context that tools can’t replicate.
It's commonly used in high-stakes environments where accuracy and thoroughness are critical—such as financial systems, healthcare applications, or environments requiring compliance with strict security standards. While manual testing is more time-consuming and costly, it produces high-quality insights that can guide meaningful security improvements.
Automated pentesting tools (AutoPT) use predefined rules and vulnerability databases to scan systems, networks, or applications. These tools are used to quickly identify common security issues such as outdated software, weak configurations, and known exploits. They are well-suited for initial assessments, regular compliance checks, and vulnerability management programs.
Automation allows for rapid coverage of large environments, saving time and reducing human error in repetitive tasks. However, these tools can generate false positives or miss context-specific or logic-based vulnerabilities. As such, automated testing is best used in combination with manual validation to ensure accuracy and completeness.
Penetration Testing as a Service (PTaaS) platforms provide a scalable, on-demand testing model delivered through a cloud interface. These platforms offer continuous access to test results, remediation tracking, and communication with testing teams. PTaaS solutions often blend automated scanning with manual testing to support both speed and depth.
PTaaS is particularly useful for organizations operating in agile or DevOps environments where frequent testing is required. It enables integration into development pipelines and offers visibility to both technical teams and management through centralized dashboards.
Bug bounty programs invite a global community of independent security researchers to discover and report vulnerabilities in exchange for rewards. Crowd-sourced platforms manage the logistics, including researcher vetting, scope enforcement, and payment handling. This model offers diverse testing techniques and real-world attacker perspectives, increasing the chances of uncovering rare or advanced vulnerabilities.
Crowd-sourced testing can be highly effective for public-facing systems and mature security teams. However, managing a bug bounty program requires clear scope definitions, effective triage processes, and internal resources to validate and respond to reports.
Standardized methodologies guide penetration testing processes, ensuring consistency and thoroughness in identifying vulnerabilities. These frameworks offer structured approaches for planning and executing tests.
Open Source Security Testing Methodology Manual (OSSTMM), developed by the Institute for Security and Open Methodologies (ISECOM), provides a framework for testing operational security. It emphasizes measurable results and focuses on five key channels: human, physical, wireless, telecommunications, and data networks. Unlike vulnerability-centered methods, OSSTMM evaluates how well controls protect assets under real-world operational conditions.
The methodology promotes unbiased testing by avoiding assumptions about system behavior or threat models. Testers quantify security through metrics like the "Security Test Audit Report" and "Operational Security Metrics," enabling organizations to benchmark and track improvements over time.
Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES) outlines a process for conducting penetration tests across various environments. It includes seven stages: pre-engagement interactions, intelligence gathering, threat modeling, vulnerability analysis, exploitation, post-exploitation, and reporting. This structure ensures a consistent and repeatable testing process.
PTES also provides guidance on technical and non-technical aspects of a test, such as rules of engagement, legal considerations, and communication protocols. It's useful for teams seeking to align their testing with industry-recognized best practices, or for organizations hiring third-party testers and needing a clear framework for evaluating service quality.
The OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG) is a framework for testing the security of web applications. It defines a broad set of test cases based on the OWASP Top 10 and covers areas like authentication, session management, input validation, and business logic flaws.
WSTG provides detailed checklists and testing procedures, allowing testers to assess both technical vulnerabilities and application-specific risks. It's widely adopted for securing applications that process sensitive data or support critical business functions. The guide also aligns with secure development practices, making it useful for integrating security into software development life cycles (SDLC).
NIST SP 800-115, titled "Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment," is a U.S. government publication that offers a structured approach to security testing. It outlines techniques such as vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, security assessment, and security audits.
The guide helps organizations plan, execute, and evaluate tests based on risk management principles. It emphasizes pre-test planning, objective-based testing, and proper documentation. SP 800-115 is particularly relevant for federal agencies and organizations that must comply with U.S. cybersecurity standards.
Effective penetration testing adheres to best practices ensuring comprehensive assessment and actionable insights. These practices optimize the testing process and improve security outcomes.
Start by specifying which systems, networks, applications, or facilities are in scope. This includes IP ranges, domain names, cloud services, or internal environments. Equally important is identifying out-of-scope areas to avoid unintended disruptions. Objectives should clarify whether the test aims to assess regulatory compliance, detect exploitable flaws, or measure incident response readiness.
Defining scope also helps with legal protection by outlining acceptable testing boundaries and obtaining necessary approvals. Clear objectives guide the testing methodology, influence the choice of tools, and ensure that the results are aligned with business goals and risk management priorities.
Automated tools are essential for identifying known vulnerabilities at scale. They rapidly scan for misconfigurations, outdated software, and exposed services using signature-based detection. However, they often lack the ability to interpret application logic or detect subtle security flaws.
Manual testing complements automation by simulating how real attackers chain vulnerabilities, exploit logic errors, or bypass controls through unconventional means. Techniques like fuzzing, code review, and custom payload crafting uncover deeper issues that automation overlooks. A hybrid approach ensures both breadth and depth in security testing.
Human factors are often the weakest link in security. Social engineering tests simulate real-world deception tactics such as phishing emails with malicious links, phone calls impersonating IT staff, or leaving infected USB drives in accessible areas. These tests help measure the resilience of employees and the organization’s ability to detect and respond to such threats.
Incorporating social engineering identifies training gaps and weaknesses in authentication or verification processes. It also allows organizations to reinforce incident response protocols and develop user awareness campaigns based on observed behaviors.
Cybersecurity is not static. New vulnerabilities emerge daily, systems are frequently updated, and attackers evolve their methods. Regular penetration testing helps organizations stay ahead of threats.
For agile environments, integrating testing into CI/CD pipelines ensures that vulnerabilities are caught early in development. Continuous testing through PTaaS platforms or crowdsourced services helps maintain security as an ongoing process.
A good penetration test is only as valuable as its documentation. Reports should categorize findings by severity (e.g., critical, high, medium, low) and include proof-of-concept details, affected systems, reproduction steps, and impact analysis. Screenshots, logs, and payloads help technical teams verify and resolve issues.
Actionable recommendations should prioritize fixes based on business risk and ease of remediation. A well-structured report should include an executive summary for decision-makers, technical details for IT staff, and a remediation tracker for follow-up. Proper documentation enables accountability, supports audits, and ensures that vulnerabilities are properly addressed.
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:
With CyCognito your offensive security teams can pivot faster to human-led exploitation-based tests:
Learn more about CyCognito automated security testing.
Download this white paper to uncover the challenges with pen testing in reducing external risk, how automation can help pen testers and red teams work more efficiently, and how CyCognito can add value.