This guide compares traditional point-in-time penetration testing with continuous penetration testing, outlining their benefits, differences, and the value of combining both to ensure comprehensive security coverage.
Organizations rely on penetration testing to validate their security and protect digital assets. These assessments not only uncover potential vulnerabilities, but also help verify security controls and satisfy compliance requirements.
When it comes to penetration testing for network and attack surfaces, security leaders have two main options: traditional point-in-time assessments or the newer continuous testing approaches. While both methods serve valuable roles in security programs, they differ in their execution and benefits. This guide breaks down both approaches to help you determine the most effective strategy for protecting your assets. We’ll also look at a combined approach so you can understand the benefits of layering point-in-time assessments and continuous testing.
Point-in-time penetration testing has long been the standard for security assessment, and for good reason. These time-bounded engagements deliver focused, comprehensive security assessments within defined parameters, usually spanning several weeks. Point in time testing generally goes like this:
Point-in-time testing is essentially snapshotting your asset risk at a given time, after which changes go untested until the next pen test, and for many organizations, this covers their needs.
For securing the attack surface, however, point-in-time testing may be inadequate – particularly if the surface is in constant flux. Large time gaps between pen tests leave organizations with quickly changing environments or high security needs vulnerable to attacks. Any changes introduced onto the surface area during the time between tests, also known as the window of exploitability (WoE), remain untested and are susceptible to attacks by bad actors. For example, if you do a pen test in February and your next pen test isn’t scheduled until June, attackers have a five month gap to exploit weaknesses in potentially hundreds of unvalidated changes on your attack surface.
Bugcrowd Continuous Attack Surface Pen Testing closes these gaps.
Instead of leaving changes untested for months between assessments, this approach detects and tests new assets as soon as they appear in your environment. Ongoing testing closes the window of exploitability so threat actors have fewer opportunities to prey on untested features. Continuous testing generally follows a structured approach:
The result is an ongoing cycle of discovery, assessment, and validation that maintains pace with your organization’s development. In general, organizations that need more than three pen tests a year benefit from continuous testing, especially those with complex environments, daily deployments, or strict compliance requirements.
Continuous pentesting and traditional point-in-time testing each offer distinct advantages and cater to different organizational needs in terms of cost-effectiveness and output.
Continuous pentesting involves regularly assessing security systems, as opposed to the traditional approach, which typically involves conducting these tests at specific intervals. Although initial setup and integration of continuous testing solutions with penetration testers might require higher upfront investment compared to point-in-time testing, the long-term benefits often outweigh these costs. By continuously monitoring and resolving security issues, organizations can potentially reduce the costs of real-world attacks associated with breaches or data losses, which might be more likely with less frequent testing.
On the other hand, traditional point-in-time testing tends to be less expensive to gain access to penetration testers initially as it involves a one-time or periodic assessment. This method suits organizations with limited budgets and resources or those that operate in less dynamic threat landscape. That being said, the static nature of traditional penetration testing can lead to significant gaps between tests, wherein new vulnerabilities might go undetected until the next scheduled test. This gap can potentially increase overall risk and remediation costs, especially if an exploit occurs in the interim. An organization’s choice between these methods depends not only on immediate costs but also on the consideration of potential long-term repercussions on security and cost-efficiency.
Continuous Penetration Testing:
Traditional Point-in-Time Testing:
Continuous security testing and point-in-time testing represent two distinct approaches to assessing and enhancing an organization’s security posture. The dynamic approach of continuous testing enhances security posture by enabling organizations to promptly address weaknesses, thereby reducing the window of opportunity for potential exploits.
It allows for near-instantaneous feedback and a more adaptive security strategy that evolves alongside emerging threats in an ongoing process.
In contrast, point-in-time testing involves scheduled, periodic assessments, typically conducted quarterly or annually. While it provides a snapshot of the security posture at a specific time, it may not account for new vulnerabilities that emerge after the test is completed, potentially leaving gaps in visibility and security standards until the next assessment.
Both point-in-time and continuous penetration testing serve valuable roles, but when should you utilize each option? Or is a combined approach a better choice for your organization?
For many organizations, point-in-time testing works perfectly for their needs. Some companies and many government groups require pen testing to meet compliance requirements, and in those cases point-in-time testing meets those requirements. Point-in-time tests can also check the box for HIPAA compliance and security certifications like ISO 27001 and SOC 2. If you only need to do two or three pen tests a year or have a fixed security budget, point-in-time testing is generally the most cost-effective solution.
Fast-moving organizations with constantly evolving infrastructure might not be able to tolerate large WoEs, since they can’t leave too many changes unvalidated for too long without negative consequences. In these cases, continuous pen testing offers ongoing coverage without the cost or drawbacks of serial pentesting. Alternatively, newer security teams that need help while ramping up may find having continuous support externally can help them keep their assets safe as they build that expertise internally.
When implementing their testing strategy, organizations should remember that comprehensive security requires a layered approach. Continuous testing alone can’t cover all security testing needs, since it’s limited to network and attack surface. Most organizations benefit from combining different types of testing to ensure complete coverage across their infrastructure. While point-in-time and continuous assessment covers network and attack surface testing, organizations typically need specialized testing for web applications, APIs, IoT devices, cloud configurations, and AI systems.
Whether you are looking for point-in-time testing or non-stop coverage with continuous testing, Bugcrowd has you covered. For continuous testing, we offer Continuous Attack Surface Penetration Testing for complete coverage.
To request a quote for either pen testing option, check out our pricing page.