The development of the HackGATE Pentest Compliance Module began with an observation: penetration testing often lacks the visibility needed to ensure its quality and comprehensiveness. This realization led us to conduct in-depth research in the spring of 2024, surveying over 100 cybersecurity professionals about their experiences with penetration testing.
Our findings were eye-opening. We discovered that 60% of respondents faced challenges in understanding the thoroughness of their pentest projects. Many struggled to measure overall success and lacked mechanisms to ensure comprehensive testing. This lack of visibility was a significant concern for us.
That's why we developed the Pentest Compliance Module within HackGATE. Our goal was to create a solution that would help companies measure the quality and comprehensiveness of their penetration tests. We wanted to provide a structured approach to monitoring and evaluating pentest activities, ensuring that security teams have the solution they need to gain deeper insights into their security testing processes.
Throughout my cybersecurity career, whether receiving pentest reports as a cybersecurity officer or delivering them to clients as a pentest service provider, I consistently made efforts to evaluate the thoroughness of the testing and often had concerns. For instance, I frequently observed that any document labeled as a "Penetration Test Report" or similar was accepted during a SOC2 audit without benchmarking it to industry standards or control frameworks. In my opinion, this undermines the credibility and reputation of the cybersecurity industry.
A concerning trend among organizations is selecting pentest providers solely based on who offers the lowest price, which is a scenario we frequently observe despite its inherent risks. Companies need to understand why this choice can potentially harm the entire organization, causing serious financial and legal consequences and the loss of customer trust.
My proposed control framework covers five key aspects: quality assessment, testing traffic, testing techniques, testing duration, and scope coverage.
Control ID: 01-quality-framework
Control description: Develop and manage a framework for assessing the quality of penetration testing activities, independent of the severity of identified vulnerabilities.
The quality of a pentest project is often misjudged if the security team focuses solely on the severity of identified vulnerabilities. This evaluation is narrow and overlooks other important factors, such as the number of ethical hackers who have previously attempted the test and the depth and thoroughness of the testing process.
To address these issues and ensure the quality of the testing process, it is crucial to establish controls based on analyzed data. By incorporating the control framework, security teams can enhance the reliability of penetration testing activities and gain a better understanding of their effectiveness.
Control ID: 02-testing-traffic-monitoring
Control description: Guarantee the monitoring of the security testing traffic generated during the penetration test, including a variety of manual and automated testing activities.
The purpose of a penetration test is to evaluate the security of a company's IT systems through the deployment of different attack types. We can only ensure the effectiveness of the pentest if we have proof that testing is executed comprehensively and systematically. Without established baselines for minimum testing traffic, which must include both manual and automated testing activities, the assessments may lack thoroughness and consistency.
To address this issue, it is imperative to establish baselines for minimum testing traffic, ensuring a comprehensive and systematic approach to security assessments. This framework includes:
By setting these baselines, organizations can ensure that their security assessments are thorough and standardized.
Control ID: 03-security-testing-techniques
Control description: Ensure and evaluate the variety of testing techniques employed, benchmarked against OWASP guidelines.
Ethical hackers are often driven by their personal expertise and interests, sometimes leading them to concentrate on specific vulnerabilities that captivate their attention. While this enhanced focus can be valuable, it can inadvertently result in incomplete or unbalanced testing. This poses a risk to the overall security assessment, as not all potential vulnerabilities and attack vectors may be thoroughly examined.
To mitigate this risk and ensure a balanced and thorough approach to penetration testing, it is essential to adhere to established guidelines like OWASP. Following these comprehensive guidelines can help cover a wide range of potential vulnerabilities and attack vectors. HackGATE can assist you in enforcing controls and fostering systematic approaches by ensuring adherence to these guidelines.
Control ID: 04-testing-duration
Control description: Monitor the duration of the penetration test.
Identifying vulnerabilities within an IT system is an inherently time-consuming process that demands significant diligence and effort from ethical hackers. The complexity and depth of this task necessitate a comprehensive approach to monitoring the testing process to ensure its effectiveness. While the volume of traffic generated during penetration testing is a critical metric, it alone does not provide a complete picture of the testing process.
To achieve a more accurate assessment, it is also essential to monitor the duration of the test. Assessing the time spent on testing to gain insights into the thoroughness and depth of the examination. Longer testing durations may indicate a more exhaustive exploration of potential vulnerabilities, whereas shorter durations might suggest a more superficial assessment.
By integrating testing duration into the evaluation metrics, organizations can gain a more nuanced understanding of the penetration testing process. This dual approach allows for a more precise measurement of the effort and resources invested in identifying vulnerabilities. It also helps assess the comprehensiveness of the testing activities, ensuring that all critical areas of the IT system are adequately tested.
Control ID: 05-scope-coverage
Control description: Ensure comprehensive coverage of the scope.
While it is advantageous for ethical hackers to concentrate on the business-critical functions of web applications, where vulnerabilities are most likely to be discovered, this focus can sometimes lead to overlooked areas within the system. Cybersecurity leaders need to be able to identify the areas that have not been thoroughly tested to address potential blind spots and ensure comprehensive coverage of the testing scope.
To address this issue and ensure a thorough and balanced approach to penetration testing, cybersecurity leaders need to analyze the areas that have not been thoroughly tested to identify potential blind spots. Implementing a balanced testing approach, where ethical hackers prioritize testing business-critical functions while also ensuring that non-critical areas are not overlooked is essential.
This approach helps in identifying and addressing potential blind spots, thereby enhancing the overall security posture of the web applications. It also helps security teams ensure that all critical and non-critical areas are adequately tested, providing a more comprehensive assessment of the system's security.
There are numerous regional and industry-specific regulatory frameworks, such as the SOC2, DORA, GDPR, PCI DSS, and HIPAA, emphasizing the importance of vulnerability testing within IT systems. These regulations mandate that organizations implement security measures to protect sensitive data and ensure compliance.
However, despite mentioning security testing and vulnerability scanning, these frameworks often lack detailed guidance on the specific requirements for conducting such tests, leaving organizations without clear directives on how to execute these critical assessments. OWASP's Application Security Verification Standard framework offers a structured approach to identifying and mitigating security risks, ensuring a thorough evaluation of web applications. Nevertheless, it is important to note that auditing security tests is still needed.
These regulatory frameworks generally do not include guidelines for auditing penetration test projects or monitoring the work of ethical hackers. This is significant, as the effectiveness of penetration testing highly depend on the methodologies and practices employed by ethical hackers. Without a standardized framework for auditing and monitoring, there is a risk of inconsistent testing quality and potential oversight of critical vulnerabilities.
I believe that incorporating a standardized control framework for auditing ethical hacking projects and monitoring the work of ethical hackers into these regulatory standards would be a straightforward task. Integrating the proposed elements into regulatory frameworks could help organizations achieve a more systematic and rigorous approach to penetration testing. This would not only enhance the overall security posture of IT systems but also foster greater confidence among auditors and stakeholders in the reliability and validity of the testing outcomes.
While this control framework for penetration testing would benefit all organizations, it could be particularly useful for larger enterprises operating with distributed pentest teams. It ensures thoroughness in security testing, enhances visibility and accountability, and facilitates coordination among teams.
This framework not only supports compliance with regulatory requirements but also provides a structured approach that helps organizations maintain a resilient security posture.
The Pentest Compliance Module is available in our enterprise package. To learn more about how HackGATE can help your organization achieve enhanced penetration testing quality and compliance, please contact our cybersecurity experts to discuss your needs.
