Penetration Testing Services

Limited Value: Most penetration tests only focus on identifying and fixing individual vulnerabilities within the scope of the test. While this can address immediate issues, it often fails to provide a broader perspective on systemic problems. The value of these tests is limited because they don’t address the underlying issues that could prevent future vulnerabilities.

Recurrence of Vulnerabilities: Without addressing the root causes of vulnerabilities, clients often see the same issues reappear in subsequent tests. This cycle of recurring vulnerabilities is not only frustrating but also indicates a deeper problem within the organisation’s security practices. Traditional penetration tests rarely delve into these root causes, leaving clients with unresolved issues.

Inaccurate Risk Ratings: Penetration tests that lack business context can lead to risk ratings that do not accurately reflect the true impact on the client’s operations. This misalignment means that the test results may not prioritise the most critical vulnerabilities, leading to potential gaps in security and ineffective allocation of resources for remediation.

Lack of Integration and Communication: In most cybersecurity organisations, penetration testers work in silos, separate from other critical teams such as GRC, engineering, developers, and technical consulting. This lack of integration can result in reports that do not fully leverage the expertise and experience available within the organisation, especially from those already well versed with the client’s business. Consequently, the recommendations provided may be less effective and not aligned with the company’s overall security strategy.

Misaligned Recommendations: When penetration testers provide recommendations without adequate consultation with other experts with skillsets outside the penetration tester’s domain, their suggestions might not be feasible or optimal. For example, a penetration tester might recommend changes in development practices without fully understanding the practical implications or constraints faced by the development team, leading to suboptimal security measures.

Limited Engagement with Clients: Traditional penetration testing services often do not involve clients in the process beyond the initial scoping and final reporting stages. This limited engagement means that the testers may miss critical business context and nuances that could affect the interpretation of findings and the development of remediation strategies. Organisations often feel that the reports are generic and not tailored to their specific needs.