Web application penetration testing: a beginner’s guide
According to recent statistics, 28% of all business activity is now conducted online and 71% of businesses have a web application. But these routes to market bring their own risks. Frequent changes, updates and upgrades to websites and web apps leave them exposed to vulnerabilities. According to Verizon, web application attacks make up 26% of breaches, and are now the second most common attack vector. With so much business now conducted online, protecting your digital assets from attack is critical – but how do you go about it? The simple answer is with ongoing monitoring and regular web application penetration testing. Let’s dive in.
What is web application penetration testing?
Web application penetration testing, or pentesting, is where a security expert or security team tests a web application’s security defenses by simulating attacks that a hacker might carry out. Unlike a hacker, these ‘ethical’ testers do this safely and legally, with the rules of engagement and the scope of the assessment agreed with the client beforehand.
When a tester gets their hands on a web application, they run through several stages. Firstly, there’s the information gathering phase where they figure out how it works. They'll also map out important features like file uploads and user input. Once that’s done, they’ll actively try to find vulnerabilities in the application. They’ll use their skills to see how the app behaves under different circumstances, and identify any security flaws. During the assessment, the tester will note all their observations and any security issues. They will then collate these issues into a detailed report with a description, evidence, and remedial advice.
Why is web application pentesting important?
Cybercrime is increasing, with attacks on web apps becoming more automated and indiscriminate. Given the value of information that web apps can transmit and store, it’s no wonder they’re a target, and breaches can have far-reaching consequences, from fines and financial costs – the average cost of a data breach now stands at $4.35m – to damaged reputations.
Web app pentesting is also integral to compliance. If you’re found to be non-compliant with mandatory standards such as HIPAA or PCI, or in breach of contract by failing to adhere to ISO 27001 or SOC 2, lost business is the least of your worries because fines can be big. All of these standards require you to manage vulnerabilities and find and fix any weaknesses. Pentests will help you identify these threats so you can repair them before criminals can pounce.
Fixing every vulnerability can feel daunting, but a pentest report will include a list of vulnerabilities with a risk rating to gauge the severity of the weakness. By taking into account the application and the context in which the weakness can be exploited, and by which types of user, these risk ratings should help you prioritize your remediation efforts to where they matter most.
How are continuous or point-in-time pen tests carried out?
This depends entirely on your needs – it’s not as simple as point-in-time or continuous. Any pentester worth his salt will ask what’s driving your test; for example, if it’s operational security, then continuous vulnerability scanning with human triage (like Intruder's Vanguard solution) could be the best choice because it ensures your security posture is assessed continually.
If you're making an acquisition, then a point-in-time assessment may be better so you can understand any potential risks. Other variables to think about is how you deliver software; if it’s within a DevOps environment, then continuous testing is the only way to go. Your app will have frequent code deployments and updates which could introduce a vulnerability. Continuous testing will help trap these earlier than a once-a-year or point-in-time test. Let's look at both in more detail.
Point-in-time testing of web applications
Point-in-time penetration testing for web applications involves a security expert manually simulating various attack scenarios to assess the robustness of a web application’s defenses. As mentioned already, they’ll make detailed notes of their findings throughout their investigation and produce a list of recommendations.
While many operations or services are becoming automated, penetration testing is one activity where humans still have the upper hand. This is because human hackers have the advantage of understanding the application’s context. For example, which users should and shouldn't be able to access which types of data, and which parts of the application are more or less sensitive. Plus, they’re expert problem solvers and savvy spotters when it comes to recognizing potential vulnerabilities, coming up with creative solutions for maximum protection against malicious activity.
But while these penetration tests can add a deeper layer of assurance to your company's security posture, it’s only for a particular point in time - hence the name. The minute a developer writes insecure code, a component of the application is misconfigured, or a component of the app is changed, a whole host of new vulnerabilities may emerge that your pentest report didn't cover. The solution is a form of pentesting that occurs far more frequently…
Continuous testing of web applications
These annual or six-monthly penetration tests provide in-depth assessments of your exposure at a particular point in time, but attack surfaces rarely stay the same for long. Continuous penetration testing for web applications is increasingly necessary to close the gaps between these point-in-time assessments. Sometimes known as automated penetration testing, continuous testing enables you to get an almost real-time assessment of your web app’s security status so you can stay ahead of potential threats. It's worth remembering that true penetration testing can't be fully automated - yet - but Intruder’s new Premium plan goes further by providing rapid response to threats found ‘in the wild’, prioritized scans of new and emerging threats, and best-in-class customer support – to provide continuous coverage of your digital assets. See for yourself by trying our interactive demo below.
For optimal web application security, a combination of continuous, automated vulnerability scanning and point-in-time penetration testing is best. This will give you unparalleled human expertise with continuous coverage of your systems so you can be sure your online assets are protected at all times.
How to choose a web app pentesting vendor
Start by looking for a provider who has experience of your industry and the technologies your web app uses. If they aren’t familiar with your current tools or tech stack, their testing may miss critical issues.
If you aren’t sure, ask about the methodologies and techniques they use during the testing process, as well as their overall approach to security. Transparency is key; you want a vendor who will be upfront and honest about their findings and recommendations.
It’s possible you’ll be presented with a host of cybersecurity qualifications such as OffSec OSCP, CREST CCT APP, SANS, or LPT (Master). They’re all valuable and demonstrate expertise, but there’s no substitute for experience.
Ultimately, the best option for your business should be a well-rounded approach: a team with the right expertise, proven experience, and a range of services to meet your needs. For more information, check out our guide to choosing a pen testing company.
Protect your web application with Intruder
With Intruder’s continuous web application scanning technology and pentesting expertise, you can secure your web app easily no matter how big or small your organization is, with:
- Authenticated web application scanning that uncovers weaknesses behind log-in pages so you can fix vulnerabilities before hackers exploit them
- Emerging threat scans that find new vulnerabilities as soon as they’re disclosed so you can safeguard sensitive data faster
- Automated API vulnerability scanning that’s easy to integrate into your CI/CD pipeline and DevOps process to embed security while you build
Web application pen testing is a critical security practice for every business with a web presence. With the right automation and expertise in place, any business can carry out successful web application pentests and assure customers they take cybersecurity seriously. Try Intruder today and protect your web applications.
- Intro
- 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
- Conclusion
- Analysis Decisions
- TL;DR
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.
Written by
.jpg)
