automated security testing

Eamon Carroll

min read

What is automated security testing?

Automated security testing is the use of software tools to run repeatable security checks—such as vulnerability scanning and web application scanning—without requiring a tester to manually perform every step. It helps teams detect common weaknesses (misconfigurations, outdated components, known CVEs, insecure app behaviors) consistently across environments.

In practice, automated security testing often combines multiple methods like DAST, SAST, and sometimes IAST, depending on what you’re testing and how much visibility you have into the code and runtime.

Why use automated security testing instead of manual testing?

Automated security testing scales better than manual testing and can run continuously, making it well-suited for fast release cycles. It’s especially valuable for catching repeatable issues early and often.

Manual testing still matters for deep exploitation, business logic flaws, and creative attack paths—but automation reduces the workload by:

Finding low-hanging vulnerabilities quickly
Re-testing after fixes to prevent regressions
Providing consistent coverage across many apps and hosts

Most programs combine automated security testing with periodic human-led review.

What security checks can be automated effectively?

Many high-signal checks are well-suited to security test automation, including:

Known vulnerability scanning for common CVEs and exposures
Security scanning for missing headers, weak TLS, or risky configurations
DAST-style tests for issues like injection patterns and auth weaknesses
SAST checks for insecure coding patterns and secrets in code
Dependency and component analysis for outdated libraries

Automated security testing is best at breadth and consistency. It’s less effective at nuanced authorization logic and complex chained attacks.

What tools are used for automated security testing?

Tools vary by target (code, runtime, network, cloud). Common categories include:

SAST tools for source code analysis
DAST tools for black-box web testing and web application scanning
IAST agents that observe app behavior at runtime
Vulnerability scanning tools for hosts and services
CI/CD-integrated scanners for continuous security testing

The right toolset depends on tech stack, risk tolerance, and how you deploy. Many teams standardize outputs (tickets, SLAs, severity) so automated security testing results feed directly into remediation workflows.

How does automated security testing fit into CI/CD pipelines?

Automated security testing is often embedded into CI/CD so checks run on every pull request, build, or deployment. This supports DevSecOps testing by shifting detection earlier and making security feedback fast.

Typical pipeline placements:

Pre-merge: SAST and dependency checks
Build stage: container/image scanning
Post-deploy: DAST and security scanning against staging/production

To keep pipelines reliable, teams tune thresholds (e.g., fail builds only on critical issues) and maintain allowlists for accepted risk.

What are common false positives and how do you reduce them?

False positives often come from limited context (especially with black-box DAST), generic signatures, or unusual app behavior. Examples include “injection” reports on endpoints that safely encode input, or “missing auth” on intentionally public pages.

To reduce noise in automated security testing:

Authenticate scans and crawl the app properly
Tune rules and disable irrelevant checks
Validate findings with reproduction steps
Use IAST or source context (SAST) to corroborate results
Track accepted risks with expiration dates

Better triage turns automated security testing into a trusted signal rather than alert fatigue.

How do you prioritize and remediate findings from automated tests?

Prioritization should reflect exploitability and business impact, not just raw severity. Automated security testing outputs are most actionable when enriched with context like affected asset, internet exposure, and whether exploitation was verified.

A practical flow:

Deduplicate and group by root cause
Prioritize by: criticality, exposure, ease of exploit, asset importance
Assign owners and remediation SLAs
Re-run automated security testing to confirm fixes
Track trends over time (time-to-fix, recurring categories)

This approach keeps vulnerability scanning results aligned with real risk reduction.

What are the limitations and risks of automated security testing?

Automated security testing cannot fully replace skilled human assessment. It may miss business logic vulnerabilities, complex privilege escalation, and multi-step attack chains. It can also create risk if misconfigured—for example, scanning production aggressively or leaking credentials used for authenticated scans.

Other limitations include incomplete coverage (missed endpoints), noisy results, and over-reliance on “pass/fail” dashboards. For maturity, many teams pair continuous security testing and penetration testing automation with periodic manual penetration tests to validate defenses and uncover deeper issues.