Phying News
P非影 中文
Curated security research, vulnerabilities, advisories and tools for practitioners.

Manual vs. Automated Testing

netspi.com | blog | #code-review | #owasp | #automated-scanning | #application-security | #manual-testing | #vulnerability-assessment

Summary

I’ve always been a firm believer in incorporating manual testing as part of any security assessment; after all, a human is the best judge of evaluating the contents of application output, and best able to truly understand how an application is supposed to function.
Published
Collected

original ↗

Related coverage

blog · netspi.com
Code Review – is automated testing enough?
Automated scanners like Fortify and Checkmarx satisfy PCI DSS 6.3.2 but miss flaws found in manual review, especially authentication bugs, and false positives often overwhelm developers.
blog · netspi.com
Happy New Year – Have you made your application testing resolution yet?
A New Year reminder that code review and penetration testing each miss vulnerabilities the other finds, so organizations should do both and remediate findings instead of delaying fixes.
blog · netspi.com
Performing Code Reviews to PCI Requirements
We were asked by a customer about performing code review based on the PCI requirements.
blog · netspi.com
Are You Testing Your Web Application for Vulnerabilities?
As an organization that performs a large volume of code reviews and penetration tests, NetSPI is frequently asked which type of application assessment is the best option.
blog · netspi.com
Do Not Use the Back Door!
In system development a "backdoor" creates a way of bypassing normal authentication to allow access to a system.
blog · projectdiscovery.io
Continuous PR Security Review
Post-mortem vulnerabilities often look harmless in the diff—they only surface at runtime. ProjectDiscovery says LLM code review hits just 63% precision, so PRs need validation on a running app.
back