The below article is authored by Sandeep Hodkasia, CEO & Founder of Appsecure Security
Pentesting, i.e., penetration testing plays a critical role in cybersecurity. But as organizations strive higher and higher to enhance their safeguarding protocols, the question that has kept cyber experts awake at night is which exactly is better, manual pentest or automated testing?
The Double-Edged Sword
The debate between manual and automated pentesting has gained a lot of traction. While both methods offer significant advantages, manual pentesting often proves to be more powerful when it comes to uncovering complex vulnerabilities and ensuring robust security. So let’s take a look into the pros and cons of both approaches and try to understand why manual pentest still holds an important place in a cybersecurity expert’s arsenal despite cutting-edge automated innovations.
To get deeper insights on the matter we can look at both approaches from multiple perspectives with taking different variables into consideration.
Human Ingenuity VS Automation
Automated tools have revolutionized pen testing by offering efficiency and the ability to scan vast systems for known vulnerabilities quickly. However, the real power of pen testing lies in uncovering the subtle, sophisticated threats that require human intelligence to detect. Manual testers possess the ability to think creatively, adapt their methods on the fly, and exploit unexpected system behaviors that automated tools might overlook. For instance, complex logic flaws or access control issues often go unnoticed by automated tools, but a skilled human tester can identify and exploit these weaknesses effectively.
Tailored Testing for Unique Environments
No two organizations have identical infrastructures, and this uniqueness requires a tailored approach to security testing. Automated tools, though powerful, often operate based on predefined instruction and thought systems, which might not be flexible enough to accommodate the specific nuances of any particular organization’s environment. Manual pentesters, on the other hand, can customize their approach based on the specific systems, applications, and configurations they are working with. This allows them to perform a more thorough examination of potential vulnerabilities.
Flexibility and Depth
Manual testing is not just a process, it’s an art. Experienced testers bring a level of creativity and intuition to their work that is impossible for automated tools to replicate. During a manual pen test, a tester might notice something unusual and decide to explore further, potentially uncovering vulnerabilities that would remain hidden in a purely automated process. This flexibility allows for deeper exploration into a system’s weaknesses, making manual testing an invaluable component of a comprehensive security strategy.
Limitations of Manual Testing
While manual pentesting offers significant advantages, it is not without its fair share of problems. One of the primary drawbacks is the time required. A thorough manual test can take days if not weeks to complete, which isn’t always ideal especially if a critical vulnerability is discovered that requires immediate action. In situations where quick turnarounds are necessary, automated tools offer unmatched speed and efficiency.
Additionally, manual pentesting can be costly. The expertise required to conduct a thorough manual test means that skilled testers often come with a high price tag. This cost can be prohibitive for some organizations, leading them to rely solely on automated tools, despite the potential for missed vulnerabilities. Furthermore, manual tests are typically conducted less frequently due to the time and resources involved, which could leave an organization exposed to emerging threats between tests.
The Best of Both Worlds
Given the strengths and limitations of both manual and automated testing, the most effective approach to cybersecurity often involves a combination of the two. Automated tools can handle repetitive, time-consuming tasks, allowing human testers to focus on the more nuanced and complex aspects of security testing. This approach ensures that while no stone is left unturned, the process remains efficient and cost-effective.
Automated tools can be used to regularly scan systems for known vulnerabilities, providing a baseline level of security. Meanwhile, manual testing can be employed periodically or in response to specific threats, ensuring that more complex vulnerabilities are identified and addressed. By combining these approaches, organizations can build a more robust and resilient defense.
The Takeaway – Manual Pentest or Automated Testing
While automated testing has made significant strides in recent years, the expertise, intuition, and adaptability that come with manual pentesting remain irreplaceable. Manual pentesting offers a level of creativity, depth, and customization that automated tools cannot match. By leveraging the strengths of both manual and automated testing, organizations can ensure a more comprehensive and effective security protocol.
Also read – NETGEAR to Showcase Cutting-Edge ProAV Solutions at InfoComm India 2024
Join our WhatsApp News Channel for quick updates – FYI9 News WhatsApp Channel
