Penetration tests are necessary for a company’s security. They are controlled, simulated cyberattacks conducted to identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses in a system or network’s security defenses. There are three types of penetration tests: black box, gray box, and white-box penetration tests.
Many prefer the black box penetration test because they feel it’s the most realistic representation of a genuine cyber threat. However, this allure of realism can sometimes overshadow the potential drawbacks. Here’s why you might reconsider choosing a black box penetration test for your next security assessment.
What Is a Black Box Penetration Test?
A black box penetration test is a cybersecurity analysis where testers simulate attacks on a system, mimicking the perspective of an external attacker to identify vulnerabilities from an outsider’s standpoint.
Just like a real attacker, the black box penetration tester might not have any internal insights into your system’s assets and infrastructure, making it a true test of your defenses. This approach depends on replicating the scenario of an external threat probing for vulnerabilities.
The testers follow their instincts and knowledge of attack vectors, attempting to infiltrate and expose weaknesses in an organization’s assets. While the intention is to mirror real-world risks, it’s vital to acknowledge that this comes at the cost of overlooking potential gaps that only internal familiarity could reveal.
Why a Black Box Penetration Test Might Fall Short
According to the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0, black box penetration tests have proven to critical security issues for the past 30 years and this has led to massive breaches. But black box pentests, especially when conducted at the end of development, is not an effective assurance of security.
One thing that significantly separates a black box penetration test from a real cyberattack is the time it takes to carry out both. Malicious actors have a lot of time to carry out attacks, spanning months or even years; meanwhile, most penetration tests are completed within a few weeks.
Attackers need just one point of entry or vulnerability to gain access into a system, and they can stay on that for months. Because a penetration test has a restricted timeframe, this often limits the depths of exploration, making the penetration tester unable to thoroughly simulate a cyberattack.
Although a black box test is designed to mimic external threats, it lacks the context that internal teams possess. Without understanding the specifics of your system’s architecture and defenses, penetration testers might overlook critical vulnerabilities that they would only have discovered if they had knowledge of the assets and how it was developed.
This sometimes might result in a skewed assessment. Testers may only target common entry points, overlooking certain areas assuming attackers wouldn’t exploit them, missing potential blind spots that a more holistic assessment would uncover. That’s why some pentesters gather intelligence then attack, making for a more accurate guage of your security.
Underestimating Insider Threats
Solely focusing on external threats ignores the risk posed by insiders. A black box test may not adequately evaluate vulnerabilities that an employee or contractor with access could exploit.
Considering a Balanced Approach
Gray box and white box penetration tests offer unique advantages that complement the black box method.
A gray box test strikes a balance by providing limited internal information, simulating a knowledgeable attacker. Meanwhile, a white-box test offers a transparent examination of your system’s inner workings, allowing for meticulous vulnerability identification. Opting for a blend of these approaches provides a better view of your organization’s vulnerabilities. Embracing a balanced approach fortifies your defenses and nurtures a proactive resilience to both known and unforeseen threats.