Introducing fully informed API scanning
APIs are a critical part of modern mobile, SaaS and web applications and can be found in customer-facing, partner-facing and internal applications. Over 90% of developers now use APIs, and over half say that APIs help them to develop better products.
But more APIs means more risk. By nature, APIs expose application logic and sensitive data such as Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and as more organizations use them to increase automation and improve performance, APIs are becoming an increasingly attractive target for attackers.
Rapid API growth means more risk
Gartner predicted that: “API attacks will become the most-frequent attack vector in 2022, causing data breaches for many enterprise web applications,” with several high-profile API breaches like Optus, T-Mobile and Experian disclosing millions of customers’ PII.
Knowing where your APIs are, understanding how attackers can exploit them, and fixing any vulnerabilities in your APIs are increasingly critical for developers and the SaaS businesses that use them.
Introducing API scanning with Intruder
Every business has some level of cybersecurity risk, but scaling companies that rely on APIs are more at risk than most. But most cybersecurity tools are built for large enterprises, can be hard to use and need some level of security expertise.
Intruder is different. It’s easy to use and always on. It keeps track of your entire tech stack, showing where and how you’re vulnerable, while prioritizing what matters most. And now that includes vulnerabilities in your API endpoints.
We’re really excited to add this powerful new capability to Intruder and we think you’ll love the new features. APIs need purpose-built security controls that address the unique vulnerabilities that APIs introduce. Designed by developers for developers, our API scanning will enable you to:
- Create an inventory of all your API endpoints
- Detect common API vulnerabilities
- Proactively test your APIs before they go into production
Our approach to API vulnerability scanning
Our approach to ‘informed’ API scanning means that when you upload your API schema, we can do a comprehensive scan against every single endpoint listed in your schema. This can also help those customers who have Single Page Applications (SPAs) and who are struggling to receive meaningful results from application vulnerability scanning.
By running checks on your endpoints, apps and the infrastructure they run on, no critical vulnerability is missed. With our Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) scanner and informed scanning strategy, you can even integrate your security testing into your CI/CD pipeline to find issues earlier in the development lifecycle.
Our new Application licenses
API and web application security can be complex, but licensing doesn’t need to be. We understand this, so we’ve worked hard to simplify our licenses while adding API scanning. Take a look at our pricing here.
From today, our current Authentication Licenses will have a new name and new capabilities. These ‘Application licenses’ will still scan your authenticated applications as before, but you can now add APIs to your targets.
Why not run your first API scan today. Here’s how:
- Add an API as a target by uploading your OpenAPI/Swagger schema
- Add an existing authentication or a new authentication to the API
- Get the scan results in your Scan Details page
If you need help, we’re here for you:
- Read our introduction to API security
- Need help? Check out our Help article about API scanning
- Got feedback? Chat to us in-app, we’d love to hear from you
- Raw CVE Coverage
- Risk Rating Coverage
- Remote Check Types
- Check Publication Lead Time
- Local/Authenticated vs Remote Check Prioritisation
- Software Vendor & Package Coverage
- Headline Vulnerabilities of 2021 Coverage
- Analysis Decisions
Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers, threat actors have to actively research type of vulnerability, location in vulnerable software and build an associated exploit.
Tenable release checks for 47.43% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 32.96%.
Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers and threat actors now have access to some of the information they were previously having to hunt themselves, speeding up potential exploit creation.
Tenable release checks for 17.12% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 17.69%.
The likelihood that exploitation in the wild is going to be happening is steadily increasing.
Tenable release checks for 10.9% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 20.69%.
We’re starting to lose some of the benefit of rapid, automated vulnerability detection.
Tenable release checks for 9.58% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 12.43%.
Any detection released a month after the details are publicly available is decreasing in value for me.
Tenable release checks for 14.97% of the CVEs they cover over a month after the CVE details have been published, and Greenbone release 16.23%.
With this information in mind, I wanted to check what is the delay for both Tenable and Greenbone to release a detection for their scanners. The following section will focus on vulnerabilities which:
- Have CVSSv2 rating of 10
- Are exploitable over the network
- Require no user interaction
These are the ones where an attacker can point their exploit code at your vulnerable system and gain unauthorised access.
We’ve seen previously that Tenable have remote checks for 643 critical vulnerabilities, and OpenVAS have remote checks for 450 critical vulnerabilities. Tenable release remote checks for critical vulnerabilities within 1 month of the details being made public 58.4% of the time, but Greenbone release their checks within 1 month 76.8% of the time. So, even though OpenVAS has fewer checks for those critical vulnerabilities, you are more likely to get them within 1 month of the details being made public. Let’s break that down further.
In Figure 10 we can see the absolute number of remote checks released on a given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability has been published. What you can immediately see is that both Tenable and OpenVAS release the majority of their checks on or before the CVE details are made public; Tenable have released checks for 247 CVEs, and OpenVAS have released checks for 144 CVEs. Then since 2010 Tenable have remote released checks for 147 critical CVEs and OpenVAS 79 critical CVEs on the same day as the vulnerability details were published. The number of vulnerabilities then drops off across the first week and drops further after 1 week, as we would hope for in an efficient time-to-release scenario.
While raw numbers are good, Tenable have a larger number of checks available so it could be unfair to go on raw numbers alone. It’s potentially more important to understand the likelihood that OpenVAS or Tenable will release a check of a vulnerability on any given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability is released. In Figure 11 we can see that Tenable release 61% their checks on or before the date that a CVE is published, and OpenVAS release a shade under 50% of their checks on or before the day that a CVE is published.
So, since 2010 Tenable has more frequently released their checks before or on the same day as the CVE details have been published for critical vulnerabilities. While Tenable is leading at this point, Greenbone’s community feed still gets a considerable percentage of their checks out on or before day 0.
I thought I’d go another step further and try and see if I could identify any trend in each organisations release delay, are they getting better year-on-year or are their releases getting later? In Figure 12 I’ve taken the mean delay for critical vulnerabilities per year and plotted them. The mean as a metric is particularly influenced by outliers in a data set, so I expected some wackiness and limited the mean to only checks released 180 days prior to a CVE being published and 31 days after a CVE being published. These seem to me like reasonable limits, as anything greater than 6 months prior to CVE details being released is potentially a quirk of the check details and anything after a 1-month delay is less important for us.
What can we take away from Figure 12?
- We can see that between 2011 and 2014 Greenbone’s release delay was better than that of Tenable, by between 5 and 10 days.
- In 2015 things reverse and for 3 years Tenable is considerably ahead of Greenbone by a matter of weeks.
- But, then in 2019 things get much closer and Greenbone seem to be releasing on average about a day earlier than Tenable.
- For both the trendline over an 11-year period is very close, with Tenable marginally beating Greenbone.
- We have yet to have any data for 2021 for OpenVAS checks for critical show-stopper CVEs.
With the larger number of checks, and still being able to release a greater percentage of their remote checks for critical vulnerabilities Tenable could win this category. However, the delay time from 2019 and 2020 going to OpenVAS, and the trend lines being so close, I am going to declare this one a tie. It’s a tie.
The takeaway from this is that both vendors are getting their checks out the majority of the time either before the CVE details are published or on the day the details are published. This is overwhelmingly positive for both scanning solutions. Over time both also appear to be releasing remote checks for critical vulnerabilities more quickly.