Legacy pen testing crams months of work into one or two expensive weeks, leaving most attack techniques untested. Static PDF reports are hard to use, and quarterly repeats waste money testing the same things. Continuous, always-on testing with automation and manual work covers more ground and gives leaders better data.
You leave so much on the table because you have this artificial time constraint. A tester is going to come in for a week or two test, but they need to like cram all those different attacker techniques and tactics into such a short period of time. And they know going into it that they, they can't test it all, they can't do it all. They don't have enough comprehensive testing because that time frame is so short. We try to enlarge that timeframe, but that becomes so expensive to do when you pay hourly for a penetration tester. And then in the end of it, you get this PDF report which is just a static, a document that you can't search, you can't filter, you can't manipulate the data to help you, as a leader in your organization, answer important questions. So the legacy pen test needs to happen more frequently. And the industry's moved to like this quarterly testing too, where it's like, okay, maybe we could do it quarterly. But that leaves so much on the table because now you're repeating so much of the same tactics over and over, you start to waste a lot of money. So if you could just fully adopt a continuous strategy where it's always on using a hybrid of automation and manual human driven testing, you're going to be in a much better state versus the legacy style.
