The rise of application security testing tools in recent years has caused confusion for both buyers and vendors. For some, DAST has been wrongly reduced to a checklist item, prioritizing cost over quality. This trend is increasing the risk for organizations, potentially unbeknownst to security leaders. It’s time to differentiate between business-critical DAST and superficial “check-the-box” DAST—with an infographic to clarify the distinction.
Navigating the DAST maze
First off, dynamic application security testing (DAST) encompasses all security testing on a live application, whether manual or automated. However, in cybersecurity terminology, a “DAST tool” typically refers to a web vulnerability scanner, which can vary greatly in terms of maturity, purpose, and effectiveness. Generally speaking, DAST tools can be categorized into three informal groups:
- Pentesting scanners: Designed for ad-hoc scanning by single users to identify potential issues for further manual testing
- Basic automated scanners: Outdated products that struggle with modern web applications, resulting in subpar outcomes
- Comprehensive DAST solutions: Specialized products for automated vulnerability testing, continuously updated to align with current web technologies
The right tool for you depends on your specific requirements. For instance, a scanner perfect for a penetration tester may generate too many false positives if automated in the pipeline. Conversely, an enterprise solution with automation and integration features may be excessive for scanning just one site. Ultimately, there are only two types of DAST tools: those crucial for your application security and those that merely fulfill a checkbox requirement.
The checkbox trap
Vulnerability scanning is not only a best practice but often a mandatory compliance measure. In the midst of meeting numerous requirements, DAST can become merely a box that organizations feel compelled to tick off, regardless of scan accuracy or relevance to their specific needs. This temptation can arise when DAST is bundled inexpensively with other cybersecurity tools or when individuals suggest using a free open-source scanner as a quick fix.
A checkbox approach to DAST leaves organizations exposed to risks, offering a false sense of security. Knowing you have DAST doesn’t necessarily mean you’re protected. The purpose of security testing is to identify and rectify vulnerabilities. Simply possessing a tool doesn’t enhance your security. Running scans that don’t detect anything or receiving unhelpful vulnerability reports won’t bolster your defenses.
A functional DAST tool can revolutionize your application security, while a malfunctioning one can be worse than having no DAST at all.
You can’t automate inaccurate results
The primary challenge with automated dynamic testing lies in ensuring precision throughout the scanning process. An inaccurate crawler might overlook certain targets entirely. A subpar scan engine could miss vulnerabilities in tested targets. Inadequate reporting and prioritization could inundate users with false positives and unactionable alerts.
With ineffective scanning and testing, the tool may report minimal findings or nothing at all, falsely reassuring you of your application’s security. You might mistakenly believe your app is secure because the scanner didn’t uncover any vulnerabilities, when in reality, significant portions of the app were left untested. This is a common issue with outdated tools that struggle with modern authentication requirements and dynamic applications heavy on JavaScript.
Post-scan, accurate reporting ensures users receive relevant findings. While a pentesting scanner’s numerous uncertain results may aid manual testing, they hinder automation efforts. Asking developers to sift through dozens of potential vulnerabilities, especially through automated tickets, could lead to them disregarding security concerns after encountering several false positives.
Choosing shortcuts to complete the DAST checkbox can waste time, money, and provide no tangible security enhancements.
There’s no such thing as a free DAST
Automated web vulnerability testing demands constant research, development, and maintenance to ensure accuracy on real-world applications and technology stacks. This necessitates regular updates to security checks and continuous refinement of the scanner and its configuration for compatibility with various application environments. If someone else isn’t putting in this effort, you may end up bearing the cost of attempting to do it internally.
Bundled scanners intended as checkbox solutions are often neglected and treated as secondary by the vendor, leaving your teams struggling to configure scans and integrate the tool into their workflows. For instance, an outdated tool might struggle with SSO authentication, requiring manual steps to authenticate the scanner or failing to scan authenticated pages, resulting in wasted hours.
Similarly, integrating basic DAST tools into workflows can be challenging and may require custom integrations and fragile data ingestion scripts. After investing time and resources into integration, you might find the results unusable, leading to wasted efforts and minimal value added.
Getting value from DAST
Every organization needs a DAST tool to scan its applications for vulnerabilities in production, development, or both. When selecting a solution, consider not only the upfront cost but also the time and resources required to derive measurable value from it. For DAST, vendor support can significantly impact the effectiveness of your scans and the time required to see results. To make DAST a critical element of your application security program, it must be implemented swiftly, optimized to scan all facets of your application environment safely, and provide actionable reports for remediation.
Ultimately, it’s the difference between being given a tool to manage on your own and being proactively assisted in identifying and addressing vulnerabilities promptly.
