Picus Security: Automated Pentesting Cannot Replace BAS

Cybersecurity firm Picus Security has released an analysis asserting that automated penetration testing cannot replace Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS). The company contends that automated pentesting focuses on validating attack paths, whereas BAS verifies whether existing defenses effectively block or alert on threats.

Picus Security notes that vendors of automated pentesting tools are marketing them as BAS replacements, highlighting their ability to autonomously chain vulnerabilities and map attack paths. However, the firm argues this overlooks fundamental differences, as automated pentesting proves an attacker's path but lacks visibility into defense efficacy.

Breach and Attack Simulation platforms continuously emulate real-world adversarial techniques, testing if firewalls, EDR systems, SIEM rules, and other security tools block or detect them. Crucially, each simulation runs independently, ensuring that failures remain identifiable without interference from previous attempts.

According to Picus Security data, only 14% of logged adversarial activity generates an alert, and exfiltration prevention succeeds only 3% of the time. Without BAS, these failures remain hidden. Even AI-driven pentesting solutions do not bridge this gap, as they do not add visibility into defense control operation.

The company recommends using both approaches: automated pentesting for offensive depth and BAS for defensive breadth. Integrating them via an intelligence layer allows for comprehensive security management.