6 Categories of Applications Security Testing You Should Be Aware Of
When it comes to security testing, the details may vary between applications, web apps, and APIs. Nevertheless, having a comprehensive and proactive strategy for applications security is crucial regardless of the development or deployment phases. There exist six fundamental categories of testing that every security expert should be familiar with to safeguard their applications effectively.
This post will delve into these six kinds of application security testing techniques that are vital for ensuring the security of your software against potential threats while meeting your business and operational demands. These encompass:
- Penetrating testing during the SDLC
- Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
- Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
- Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST)
- Fuzz Testing for APIs
- Application Security Posture Management (APSM)
Testing Strategies for Application Security Versus Penetration Testing
Prior to examining the six primary categories of application security testing, companies frequently seek clarity on the distinction between these approaches and penetration testing. Each of these approaches possesses unique characteristics and goals, differing from conventional pentesting in multiple aspects. Here is a brief overview of each method compared to penetration testing; nevertheless, these approaches are frequently interconnected or coincide with penetration testing, with all forming part of a proactive strategy for conducting application security testing at varying stages of the development cycle.
Penetrating Testing throughout the SDLC
Penetration Testing (Pentesting):
- A simulated cyber-attack conducted on a system, network, or application (either internal or external) to uncover vulnerabilities
- Usually carried out periodically (e.g., quarterly or annually) or in a continuous manner, which is increasingly being adopted as an automated pentesting method
- Emphasizes exploiting vulnerabilities to evaluate their impact and potential consequences for appropriate mitigation measures
- Resulting in a comprehensive report detailing the findings and recommendations for remedial actions
Penetrating Testing for the SDLC:
- Interwoven into the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) for identifying vulnerabilities throughout the development lifecycle
- Conducted at various stages (e.g., design, development, testing, deployment)
- Intended to catch and rectify vulnerabilities early in the SDLC, thereby reducing the costs and efforts associated with remediation
- Should be an automated, ongoing, and iterative assessment compared to traditional pentesting (periodic)
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
DAST:
- Examines applications from an external perspective, simulating an external attack
- Performed on running applications without access to source code
- Concentrates on identifying runtime vulnerabilities like SQL injection, XSS, etc.
- Yields immediate insights into security issues during the testing phase
Pentesting:
- Might encompass both external and internal evaluations, including source code reviews
- Can cover a wider array of attack vectors and techniques
- Less automated and more reliant on the expertise and inventiveness of the human examiner
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
SAST:
- Analyzes source code, bytecode, or binary code for vulnerabilities without executing the program
- Conducted early during development (during coding)
- Aids in identifying issues such as buffer overflows, insecure coding practices, and other vulnerabilities at the code level
- Offers insights into code quality and security best practices
Pentesting:
- More focused on the application in its deployed state and less on the underlying code
- Identifies vulnerabilities that can be exploited in a running system rather than just in the code
Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST)
IAST:
- Blends components of both SAST and DAST by scrutinizing code and monitoring application behavior during runtime
- Supplies real-time observations on vulnerabilities as the application is being utilized
- More comprehensive since it can detect issues that manifest during execution and at the code level
- Incorporated into the development and testing process for continuous monitoring
Pentesting:
- Typically undertaken as a separate endeavor from development, providing a momentary evaluation
- Relies on manual and automated strategies but lacks the continuous, real-time feedback loop of IAST
Fuzz Testing for APIs
Fuzz Testing:
- Involves sending random or malformed data to APIs to uncover unexpected behaviors or vulnerabilities
- Effective at discovering buffer overflows, crashes, and other stability issues
- Typically automated and able to unearth flaws that may remain unidentified through conventional testing approaches
Pentesting:
- Might incorporate certain elements of fuzz testing but encompasses a wider range
- Focuses on identifying and exploiting various vulnerabilities, not solely those tied to input handling
Application Security Posture Management (APSM)
APSM:
- Centers on governing and sustaining the security status of applications throughout their lifecycle
- Involves continuous supervision, vulnerability management, policy enforcement, and compliance checks
- Aims to ensure persistent security and conformity with industry standards and regulations
- Often integrates with diverse security tools and processes for a comprehensive approach
Pentesting:
- Supplies an instant assessment of an application’s
- Security at a specific juncture
- Doesn’t encompass the continual surveillance and oversight aspect of APSM
Undoubtedly, penetration testing plays a vital role in security assessments, yet it often represents a singular evaluation that mimics attacks to unearth vulnerabilities. Conversely, the mentioned methodologies above are more embedded in the processes of application development and upkeep, offering continual or more frequent penetration testing and scanning assessments. These methods focus on various phases of the application lifecycle, utilizing a mixture of automated and manual techniques.
6 Kinds of Applications Security Testing
1. Pentesting Throughout the SDLC
Penetration testing integrated within the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) entails conducting security appraisals at different stages of the development process. This ensures early identification and mitigation of vulnerabilities before application deployment. Pentesting can occur during design, coding, testing, and deployment phases to perpetually evaluate the security stance of the application.
Top Three Advantages:
- Early Discovery and Mitigation of Vulnerabilities: Identifying security flaws in the initial SDLC stages prevents their progression to later stages, where rectification becomes more expensive and challenging.
- Cost-Efficiency: Rectifying vulnerabilities early in development is more economical than addressing them post-deployment, conserving resources and diminishing remediation costs.
- Constant Enhancement and Compliance: Regular pentesting throughout the SDLC fosters ongoing security enhancements and ensures conformity with industry standards and regulations, fostering customer confidence.
2. Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) is a form of security evaluation that scrutinizes a functioning application from an external perspective to locate vulnerabilities. It emulates external assaults to pinpoint security flaws within the application’s runtime environment without requiring access to the source code.
Top 3 Perks:
- Runtime Vulnerability Recognition: DAST identifies vulnerabilities emerging during application execution, such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting (XSS).
- Instant Feedback: Offers real-time insights into security concerns, enabling prompt identification and rectification of vulnerabilities.
- No Requirement for Source Code Access: DAST can be carried out sans access to the application’s source code, making it suitable for examining third-party applications or legacy systems.
3. Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) involves evaluating an application’s source code, bytecode, or binary code to unveil security vulnerabilities without executing the program. It helps delineate issues such as insecure coding practices and code-level vulnerabilities at the onset of the development process.
Top 3 Perks:
- Early Disclosure of Code-Level Issues: Identifies vulnerabilities and insecure coding practices during the coding phase, curtailing the likelihood of security flaws progressing to later stages.
- Enhanced Code Quality: Promotes adherence to secure coding standards and best practices, culminating in superior quality code.
- Cost-Efficient Resolution: Rectifying vulnerabilities during development is more cost-effective than addressing them after deployment.
4. Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST)
Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST) amalgamates components of both SAST and DAST by scrutinizing an application’s code and monitoring its behavior during runtime. IAST delivers real-time insights into security concerns as the application is exercised, furnishing a comprehensive evaluation of code and runtime vulnerabilities.
Top 3 Perks:
- Comprehensive Vulnerability Detection: Detects vulnerabilities at both the code level and during runtime, providing a thorough security evaluation.
- Immediate Insights: Provides instant feedback on security issues, facilitating swift identification and rectification.
- Continuous Surveillance: Incorporated within the development and testing process, IAST supports ongoing security appraisal and enhancement.
5. Fuzz Testing for APIs
Fuzz Testing, or Fuzzing, for APIs entails sending random, malformed, or unexpected data to an API to pinpoint vulnerabilities, crashes, or unexpected behaviors. It assists in unearthing issues that traditional testing methods might not identify.
Top 3 Perks:
- Reveal Hidden Vulnerabilities: Uncovers buffer overflows, crashes, and other stability issues that traditional testing methods could overlook.
- Automation-Friendly: Can be automated, enabling extensive testing of diverse input scenarios without manual intervention.
- Enhanced API Robustness: Augments the overall robustness and dependability of APIs by affirming their ability to manage unexpected inputs gracefully.
6. Application Security Posture Management (APSM)
Application Security Posture Management (APSM) concentrates on consistently overseeing and preserving the security posture of applications throughout their lifecycle. It entails monitoring, vulnerability management, policy enforcement, and compliance checks to assure sustained security and adherence to industry standards.
Top 3 Perks:
- Continuous Security Oversight: Offers continual evaluation of application security, ensuring vulnerabilities are promptly identified and resolved.
- Enhanced Compliance: Aids in upholding compliance with security regulations and standards, reducing the risk of regulatory penalties.
- Proactive Risk Mitigation: Supports proactive identification and alleviation of security risks, bolstering the overall security posture and minimizing potential attack surfaces.
Application security testing is a crucial facet of contemporary software development, guaranteeing the robustness and resilience of applications against malevolent attacks. As cyber threats evolve in intricacy and frequency, the imperative to integrate inclusive security measures throughout the SDLC has never been more indispensable. While traditional penetration testing offers a vital snapshot of an application’s security stance, its integration throughout the SDLC enables early detection and mitigation of vulnerabilities, lowering the risk of expensive post-deployment corrections, and enhancing overall security. Each delineated testing method addresses specific facets of the application’s security, forming a multi-layered offensive security approach.
The six types of application security testing methodologies are not stand-alone practices; instead, they complement and reinforce one another to furnish a comprehensive security evaluation. DAST scrutinizes the application in its operational state, pinpointing runtime vulnerabilities, whereas SAST examines the source code to capture security issues early in development. IAST amalgamates these approaches, offering real-time insights during runtime and code scrutiny, rendering it a potent tool for continual security appraisal. Fuzz Testing for APIs aims to guarantee API resiliency against unforeseen inputs, while APSM provides ongoing management.and supervision of the application’s security stance, ensuring adherence and proactive hazard mitigation. These approaches collectively construct a sturdy security framework that can adjust to the fluidity of software development and the progressing threat environment.
To sum up, the amalgamation of varied application security assessment techniques is crucial for constructing secure, resilient applications. Each technique tackles distinct security obstacles, and their combined utilization guarantees thorough scope, early identification, and continual enhancement. By harnessing the capabilities of all security techniques, security experts and their companies can form a proactive AppSec security strategy that complement each other, protect your applications against current threats, and also adapts to future risks.
To learn more about application security assessment, obtain the 2024 Guide to Application Security Testing composed by BreachLock, a pioneer in offensive security solutions encompassing manual, human-driven, and persistent pentesting for applications, web applications, APIs, network, mobile apps, Thick Client, Cloud, DevOps, Internet of Things (IoT), and social engineering services.
Explore further on how BreachLock can assist you with your Applications Security Testing, or you can Book A Demo to get more insights about our platform and solutions.
About BreachLock
BreachLock is an esteemed global entity in Continuous Attack Surface Exposure Detection and Penetration Testing. Continuously unveil, rank, and alleviate vulnerabilities with confirmable Attack Surface Management, Penetration Testing, and Red Teaming.
Elevate your defense strategy with a hacker’s perspective that surpasses conventional vulnerabilities and exposures. Each risk we uncover is authenticated with substantiated evidence. We scrutinize your entire attack surface and guide you in averting your next cyber breach proactively before it manifests.
Discovered this write-up fascinating? This informative article is a contributed segment from one of our esteemed collaborators. Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to peruse more exclusive content we share.About Author
