“How does Detectify’s External Attack Surface Management platform compare to Penetration testing” or “What I’m really looking for is Penetration testing” are two statements we often hear when talking to prospects. We know that many of you are keen to understand how EASM compares with Penetration testing (Pen testing), so we’re exploring these two methodologies side-by-side.

External Attack Surface Management (EASM) and Penetration Testing (Pen Testing) enhance an organization’s cybersecurity posture but differ in scope, objectives, and capabilities.

Understanding External Attack Surface Management (EASM)

External Attack Surface Management (EASM) continuously discovers and assesses Internet-facing assets and looks for their vulnerabilities and anomalies.

The most comprehensive EASM platforms will give AppSec and ProdSec teams a complete overview of their organization’s current security state and help them understand what assets they’re exposing to the Internet.

EASM can discover known and, crucially, unknown assets, help AppSec and ProdSec quickly resolve vulnerabilities and issues, and validate that their organization follows internal security policies.

Ultimately, EASM offers AppSec and ProdSec teams the ability to move quickly on the threats that affect their organization most.

EASM use cases:

• Continuous discovery and assessment of Internet-facing assets – both known and unknown. 
• Scanning and remediating for vulnerabilities and anomalies, particularly helping resource-strapped teams prioritize threats based on their most critical assets. 
• Third-party risk assessment. 
• Securing Merger & Acquisition activity.  

The role of Penetration Testing (Pen Testing)

Performed by skilled security experts who try to compromise a web application, in-depth Penetration Testing (Pen Testing) helps discover vulnerabilities and identify complex attack vectors through simulated cyber-attacks. 

Pen Testing usually occurs within a particular scope and with specific permissions, with pen testers attempting to breach a system’s security using the same tools as a malicious actor. It is often (but not always) driven by an organization’s compliance needs. 

Most organizations leverage Pen Testing only a few times a year, resulting in prioritizing remediation of vulnerabilities discovered several weeks or even months ago. 

Pen Testing use case:

• Compliance and governance — control audits.
• Risk reduction — Gray-box, white-box, and code review.
• Attacker simulation — Black box and red teaming. 

Source: https://www.gartner.com/document/3810671?ref=authbottomrec&refval=3990112 

How EASM and Pen Testing capabilities compare

Each methodology will provide security teams with insights into vulnerabilities, anomalies, and risks that malicious actors could potentially exploit, but variations between EASM and Pen Testing appear in the following capabilities:

• Frequency & timing 
• Attack surface visibility
• Asset scoping
• Asset discovery
• Reporting & Remediation
• Occurrence of false positives
• Types of testing

Table overview of how these capabilities compare:

Combining Pen Testing with EASM

The more eyeballs (methodologies) thrown at an application, the more they’ll be discovered. But many traditional approaches to Application Security build on the assumption that an organization is already aware of its Internet footprint and defines its scope for testing from the beginning. 

Even though Pen Testing is a critical tool within many security toolkits, one of its major downsides is that it fails to keep up with the development speed of modern applications. 

While most organizations opting for Pen Testing do it annually, today’s modern technology stacks require constant monitoring

While most organizations opting for Pen Testing do it annually, today’s modern technology stacks require constant monitoring. Applications are usually updated weekly, if not daily, resulting in reports that quickly become outdated and, at best, reflect only an organization’s security posture at a particular point in time. 

For this reason, EASM and Pen Testing can be complementary. EASM provides organizations with a broad understanding of their external risks, which can help plan and prioritize Penetration Tests. Penetration Testing, in turn, can validate the effectiveness of security controls identified during EASM.

Interested to dive further into these differences? For a full breakdown into each methodology’s scope, objectives, and capabilities, our e-Book on comparing EASM and Pen Testing looks at EASM and Pen Testing side-by-side, comparing critical capabilities such as frequency & timing, attack surface visibility, asset scoping, asset discovery, reporting & remediation, false positives, and types of testing.