Automated vulnerability scanning with DAST tools and manual penetration testing are two distinct approaches to application security testing. Though the two are closely related and sometimes overlap, they differ (among other things) in scope, efficiency, and the types of security vulnerabilities found.
It can be tempting to fall into checklist mode in cybersecurity, if only for the peace of mind of ticking off the required compliance items. For web application security, some organizations still treat their periodic penetration test or vulnerability assessment as a formality to tick their “application security testing” box, which will never be enough to effectively manage security risk. Ideally, you need a continuous testing process that’s part of your wider security program—but can penetration testing provide the required coverage? And what about DAST and all the other automated testing methods out there?
This post goes into the key similarities and differences between automated and manual approaches to dynamic application security testing (DAST) and shows that it should never be an either-or choice between pentesting and DAST.
Technically speaking, any method of security testing that probes a running app from the outside (black-box testing) qualifies as DAST, whether manual or automated. However, in common use, the term DAST usually refers to automated vulnerability scanning, while manual dynamic security testing is called penetration testing.
At a high level, manual penetration testing and automated scanning with DAST tools are intended to achieve the same fundamental goal: find and report security vulnerabilities in the applications under test. The similarities encompass both the general methodology and the goals of both approaches:
Some kind of vulnerability scanner is an essential part of any pentester’s toolkit, helping to map out the application environment and find likely weak spots for further manual investigation. However, fully automated and integrated DAST differs from pentesting in several fundamental ways:
Automated vulnerability scanning with DAST is essential for continuous and scalable security testing across entire application environments. Unlike penetration testing, which is time-consuming and often limited in scope, DAST can rapidly scan multiple websites, applications, and APIs for a wide variety of common vulnerabilities. This makes it especially valuable in DevSecOps workflows, where frequent security testing lets teams catch and fix security issues early without slowing down development—and do it in-house without waiting for external processes.
Uniquely among application security testing methods, DAST can be used both in AppSec and in InfoSec, enabling scheduled, automated scans that detect vulnerabilities as applications evolve from development through to production deployments. When integrated with CI/CD pipelines, especially in combination with static application security testing (SAST) tools, DAST helps enforce security hygiene throughout the software development lifecycle (SDLC) and minimizes the risk of vulnerabilities making it into production. When used for operational security, the same DAST gives security teams a real-time, fact-based view of the security posture of their entire organization.
Manual penetration testing gives you a point-in-time assessment of your resilience in the face of a determined attacker. Depending on the defined scope, pentesters will often look not only for application vulnerabilities but for exploitable security issues overall, spanning multiple areas of security and types of attacks if needed. Unlike automated tools, pentesters can adapt their methods during the assignment to chain together multiple smaller weaknesses or discover and exploit business logic vulnerabilities such as broken authentication flows or privilege escalation bugs.
Pentesting is also needed for high-stakes security assessments, such as regulatory audits, red team exercises, or testing critical applications that store sensitive data. In cases where applications rely heavily on custom authentication mechanisms, non-standard APIs, or complex integrations, manual testing ensures a thorough evaluation of security risks. While DAST excels at frequent and scalable vulnerability detection, penetration testing works best for deep, targeted assessments that require human expertise.
Web vulnerability scanners are by far the most popular type of DAST tool. Every DAST tool has a vulnerability scanning engine, but different products vary widely in terms of capabilities and additional functionality—not to mention the quality of the scan engine itself. At one end of the spectrum, you have basic vulnerability scanners that only run a scan using an open-source engine and return results. At the other end are full-featured DAST-based platforms such as that offered by Invicti, where a proprietary scan engine is the heart of a comprehensive AppSec solution that covers multiple pre-scan and post-scan steps as well as integrating with other automated testing tools and external workflows.
Penetration testing, on the other hand, relies on both automated and manual techniques to simulate real-world attacks. Web application pentesting often starts by running a pentesting vulnerability scanner and then uses a variety of manual tools to investigate potential vulnerabilities in more depth and escalate access whenever possible. Penetration testers can also use specialized tools for network reconnaissance, password cracking, traffic analysis, fuzzing, exploit development, and more to get a more realistic picture of an organization’s exposure to security threats.
Application security testing has gone from a just-in-case proposition to a non-negotiable requirement. As application architectures and deployment modes get ever more distributed and complex, it’s no longer enough to rely only on perimeter defenses like web application firewalls—first and foremost, the underlying application itself needs to be secure. Any AppSec program worth its salt should incorporate a layered and comprehensive approach to security testing, using the right testing methods at the right time to minimize the number of application vulnerabilities at every stage of development and operations.
In an industry swimming with acronyms, an advanced DAST-first platform offers the unique ability to unify and fact-check multiple testing tools while covering both information security (to scan your organization’s own attack surface) and application security (to test the apps you’re developing and running). Combined with the scalability and tech-agnostic nature of automated vulnerability scanning, this makes DAST foundational to any cybersecurity program. Use dynamic application security testing to bring security testing in-house and fix everything you can, and only then call in the security experts and ethical hackers as part of a penetration test or bug bounty program.
Remember the MOVEit Transfer crisis? (If not, we’ve covered it here and here.) The resulting attacks that ultimately affected hundreds of organizations were only possible because malicious hackers combined several simple and normally inaccessible vulnerabilities into a devastating attack chain. Just like a penetration tester, the attackers used their human ingenuity to devise an attack path—but if those basic vulnerabilities had been found by automated scanning at earlier stages of the development process, all those MOVEit Transfer data breaches might not have happened.