There are many automated application security tools available on the market. They are useful tools for identifying vulnerabilities in your company's applications, but, they shouldn't be used alone as part of a risk identification process. This post discusses the advantages of automated tools and identifies gaps that need to be filled with manual testing techniques for a more comprehensive view of application risk.
For my purpose here, I'm going to consider automated scanning tools like WebInspect, AppScan, and Acunetix. These are all automated dynamic analysis tools, but there are quite a few other options such as Automated Code Review, Binary Analyzers, and even newer technologies that instrument application code and analyze it during runtime. The capabilities of each of these types of tools differ, but many of the pros and cons are similar.
Automated tools require at least a one-time set up step to configure it for your application. Once configured, the tools can run on a scheduled basis or even as part of a continuous integration build process. Automated tools can scan an application and deliver results very quickly, often in hours. They can scan large numbers of applications too. They are great at identifying vulnerabilities that can be identified by sending attack input and analyzing the output of the application for vulnerability signatures. The tools can detect popular vulnerabilities like SQL injection, cross-site scripting, disclosure of stack traces or error messages, disclosure of sensitive information (like credit card numbers or SSNs), open redirects, and more. They generally perform best identifying non-complex to moderately complex vulnerabilities. This makes automated tools great for use cases such as:
- A first time look at the security of a web application
- Scanning all of an organization's web applications for the first time or on a periodic basis
- Integration with other automated processes, such as the build step of a continuous integration server (probably on a schedule. i.e. every night)
After understanding the value that automated tools can provide, it's also important to understand their limitations. The primary limitation is that they aren't human. They are written to find a concrete, specific set of issues and to be able to identify those issues based on signatures or algorithms. An experienced application security tester's knowledge and expertise will far outshine a tool allowing them to identify tremendously more issues and interpret complex application behavior to understand whether a vulnerability is present. This typically means manual testing is required to identify vulnerabilities related to:
- Authentication process steps including login, forgot username/password, and registration
- Authorization, especially determining if data is accessed in excess of a user's role or entitlements or data that belongs to another tenant
- Business logic rules
- Session management
- Complex injection flaws, especially those that span multiple applications (for example a customer application accepts and stores a cross-site scripting vulnerability, but the exploit executes in the admin application)
- Use of cryptography
- The architecture and design of the application and related components
If manual testing can identify all the same issues and more versus an automated scanning tool, why bother with the automated scanning tool? Well, sometimes you don't need the automated scanning tool. But most of the time, it's still very helpful. The key factors are speed and scale. You can scan a lot of web applications very quickly, receive results, and fix them. THEN, follow up with manual testing. The caution is that scanning alone and waiting to do manual testing may leave critical risk vulnerabilities undiscovered in the application, so don't wait too long afterward.
If your organization needs assistance choosing and adopting automated scanning tools or would like more information about manual application-layer security testing, please contact Security PS. Security PS does not sell automated tools, but we have advised many of our clients regarding how to choose an appropriate tool, prepare staff for using that tool, and update processes to include its usage.