Breach and Attack Simulation vs Automated Penetration Testing: Both Needed for Robust Third‑Party Risk Validation
What Happened — Help Net Security published an analysis by Picus Security’s Sıla Özeren Hacıoğlu debunking the myth that either Breach & Attack Simulation (BAS) or Automated Penetration Testing (APT) can stand alone as a complete security validation method. The article explains the distinct purposes of each technology and why a combined approach is essential for accurate risk assessment.
Why It Matters for TPRM —
- Relying on a single testing methodology can leave critical control gaps unexposed, inflating perceived vendor security.
- BAS validates control effectiveness, while APT reveals how far an attacker could progress; both inform realistic third‑party risk scores.
- Procurement contracts that mandate only one technique may fail to meet regulatory expectations for continuous assurance.
Who Is Affected — All industries that outsource critical services (finance, healthcare, SaaS, cloud providers, MSPs, etc.) and vendors offering security‑testing platforms.
Recommended Actions —
- Review existing third‑party security assessment frameworks and ensure they require both BAS and automated pentesting coverage.
- Update RFPs and vendor questionnaires to capture evidence of continuous BAS runs and periodic automated pentest reports.
- Validate that vendors maintain up‑to‑date attack libraries and can simulate ransomware, lateral movement, and credential‑theft scenarios.
Technical Notes — BAS continuously emulates adversarial techniques (e.g., ransomware payloads, data‑exfiltration attempts) to test firewalls, EDR, SIEM, WAF, and email gateways without chaining exploits. Automated pentesting automates vulnerability chaining (e.g., Kerberoasting, privilege escalation) to map realistic attack paths. No specific CVEs are cited; the focus is methodological. Source: Help Net Security