Undergoing a penetration test can be a lengthy process. But pen testing – especially manual penetration testing – can save your organization hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in the long run. Automated scanners can seem more cost-effective upfront, but they often don’t cover the same depth of scope that manual security testing can.
Here are 7 reasons why your organization should consider undergoing a manual security and penetration testing process.
Automated Vulnerability Scans vs. Manual Penetration Testing
If you’re investing in penetration testing, you need to make sure that the firm you’ve partnered with is not merely passing off vulnerability scanning as a penetration test.
While automatic vulnerability scanners are great for discovering low-hanging fruit, automatic vulnerability scanners should not be confused with an advanced, manual penetration test. Allowing manual penetration testers to gain a basic understanding of an organization’s current security footprint and grant them the ability to target other areas of the application that will require more time and attention, but will be worth it. Vulnerability scanners are only capable of matching patterns and definitions, and are unable to find flaws that require human logic and comprehension. So, what are the benefits of advanced penetration testing?
Benefits of Manual Penetration Testing
Even with the dawn of machine learning programs, there are still items that require human attention to detail, to accurately determine, or to verify. This is why manual security testing is more important than ever before.
This is where the value of a manual penetration tester is so important. Advanced penetration testers can use their ingenuity, business logic, and abilities in analysis to discover the deep, nested flaws within a system. If an organization only hires a firm that uses automatic vulnerability scanners, critical items could be missed. These items that require human attention are what we believe to be the seven reasons why you need a manual penetration test.
DOM Based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
Such vulnerabilities can be difficult for automatic vulnerability scanners to detect. Source code can be crawled and basic assumptions can be made, but manual testing of the objects should be required to verify or discover these issues. This is why we recommend manual code reviews to help catch and prevent this kind of error.
Blind SQL Injection
SQL injection occurs when a user of the application injects SQL commands into the backend of a database. While developers have found ways to suppress errors displayed on the screen and instead log errors on the back-end, malicious hackers are still able to find ways to exploit vulnerable areas.
Because of this, automatic vulnerability scanners will often fail in discovering these vectors of attack, which is why a manual penetration test is so important. A trained human eye is required to examine the responses of the application, as many are not revealed within a returned message.
During a manual penetration test, the penetration tester will inject commands to cause the database to sleep or delay, and they will slowly watch for a delayed response in the return or visual disturbances within the response.
CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) Attacks
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks occur when an application fails to provide a mechanism to verify that the request being issued is known by the account user and is truly being requested by them. Most commonly, sensitive attacks such as creating a user account or changing a password should be tied with a unique token, which is issued along with the web request.
This token should be usable once for that action and then rendered unusable for future requests to prevent “replay” attacks. Such attacks are difficult for automatic vulnerability scanners to detect because they either show a false positive when they believe a CSRF token is not present, or they show a false negative when tokens are present but are not functioning properly.
Considering this, manual penetration testing is needed to determine the application’s vulnerability.
Logic flaws are among the toughest issues to find within an application as they require more in-depth inspection and are not blatantly obvious in their presence. Logic flaws creep up in the development of an application, especially within some of the more complex components such as session handling.
Let’s say a developer has created a shopping cart functionality for a web application. In calculating the price, the cart functionality takes the quantity and price of the item, displays the price, and allows the user to proceed. A logic flaw may exist if a person inputs a negative value for the quantity.
So, if an item costs $399, when calculated with a negative value of-1, the item would then become -$399. When the payment goes through, the purchasing value is then rendered to be free or $399 might even be refunded to the user.
Template injections are becoming more common with some of the newer frameworks, as critical security findings allow remote access into the backend system.
This access, also known as “Server-Side Template Injection,” allows certain inputs to interact with the backend system because of the ability to allow for dynamic generation of custom pages. For example, when a user inputs their email or username, if proper protections are not in place, server-side code can instead be injected. Template injections can sometimes be detected by automatic vulnerability scanners, but often protections are in place that can fool most of the automatic vulnerability scanners into missing the findings.
During advanced penetration testing, the penetration tester can play with the input and escape blacklists, resulting in successful exploitation.
Broken Access Control
Access control and session handling are two of the hardest areas to secure within web applications. If done incorrectly, critical security issues can arise from poor coding implementation.
This is another blind spot for automatic vulnerability scanners. It is difficult to determine, based off of a signature, whether an application is vulnerable. During a manual penetration test, a penetration tester will have to incorporate a lot of repetitive work, including in-depth examinations of the components at work.
Miscellaneous Injection Attacks
Automatic vulnerability scanners have their purpose within the security field. The problem with security scanners becomes apparent when they are solely relied upon to provide a security assessment.
If you’re investing in your organization’s security by undergoing penetration testing, make sure that you’re actually receiving a penetration test. Don’t let firms misguide you into thinking that an automatic vulnerability scanner can detect all of your system’s vulnerabilities. If the firm you’ve hired doesn’t use manual methods from an expert during the penetration test, you’re not receiving a quality penetration test. Contact us today to learn more about our quality, advanced penetration testing services.