Conduct Application Penetration Testing
Description
Conduct application penetration testing. For critical applications, authenticated penetration testing is better suited to finding business logic vulnerabilities than code scanning and automated security testing. Penetration testing relies on the skill of the tester to manually manipulate an application as an authenticated and unauthenticated user.
Implementation Checklist
Tool Recommendations
Continuous security testing platform with bug bounty programs, managed pentesting, and vulnerability disclosure
HackerOne · Program-based subscription
Crowdsourced security testing platform with vetted researchers, AI-enhanced pentesting, and continuous assessment
Synack · Asset-based subscription
Pentest as a Service platform with vetted pentesters, programmatic testing, and findings management
Cobalt · Credit-based subscription
Continuous attack surface management and offensive security platform combining automated scanning with expert-led pentesting
Bishop Fox · Enterprise subscription
Threats & Vulnerabilities (CIS RAM)
Threat Scenarios
Business Logic Vulnerability Exploited in Production Application
ConfidentialityAn attacker discovers and exploits a complex business logic flaw that automated scanning tools cannot detect, succeeding because no skilled penetration tester has manually tested the application's logic flows.
Chained Vulnerabilities Leading to Full Application Compromise
IntegrityAn attacker chains multiple low-severity findings into a critical exploit path that automated tools evaluate individually, but only a skilled penetration tester would identify the combined attack chain.
Authenticated Attack Path Missed by Unauthenticated Scanning
ConfidentialityCritical vulnerabilities accessible only to authenticated users remain undiscovered because no authenticated penetration test has been performed to evaluate post-login attack surfaces.
Vulnerabilities (When Safeguard Absent)
No Manual Application Penetration Testing
Without application penetration testing by skilled testers, complex business logic flaws, chained vulnerabilities, and authenticated attack paths that automated tools miss remain undiscovered in production.
Automated Testing Alone Provides Incomplete Coverage
Reliance solely on automated scanning without manual penetration testing creates blind spots in areas requiring human judgment such as authorization logic, workflow manipulation, and race conditions.
Evidence Requirements
| Type | Evidence Item | Collection Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | Configuration screenshots or exports showing protection controls enabled | Captured quarterly |
| Document | Procedure documentation for protection measures | Reviewed annually |
| Technical | SIEM dashboard showing log sources and collection status | Captured monthly |
| Record | Log review records and findings | Per review cycle |
| Technical | Vulnerability scan reports showing scope and findings | Per scan cycle |
| Record | Vulnerability remediation tracking with SLA compliance metrics | Monthly |
| Record | Penetration test report and executive summary | Per engagement |
| Record | Remediation tracking and retest validation results | Post-engagement |
| Document | Governing policy document (current, approved, communicated) | Reviewed annually |