Pentesting/Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST): How Safe is Your Application in Action?

In the world of software security, understanding how your application behaves in real-world conditions is critical. Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) is designed to do exactly that: it tests your running application for vulnerabilities by simulating attacks. But how does DAST fit into the larger ecosystem of security tests, and what can it reveal about your system’s security in real-time?

What Would DAST Result In?

When you perform a DAST scan, the results provide a snapshot of how your application behaves under attack-like conditions in a live environment. A typical DAST report might include:

1. Real-Time Vulnerabilities: DAST identifies vulnerabilities such as cross-site scripting (XSS), SQL injection, and other common attacks that exploit how your application interacts with users and external inputs.
2. Misconfigurations and Weaknesses: Since DAST operates in a live environment, it can reveal misconfigurations in your web server, authentication processes, or session handling. These issues may not be detectable during code review but become apparent when the system is operational.
3. Exposed Entry Points: DAST helps detect exposed APIs, weak authentication mechanisms, or improperly secured endpoints. These issues might leave your application vulnerable to attackers probing for weaknesses.

But one of DAST’s key limitations is that it cannot trace vulnerabilities back to their source in the code. While DAST effectively identifies security flaws in a running system, it does not provide insight into the specific line of code or function responsible for the issue. This makes it difficult to immediately locate and fix the problem without additional analysis, such as combining DAST results with SAST to find the underlying cause.

The key strength of DAST is its ability to uncover issues that only appear when your system is interacting with real data and real users. It’s like testing the finished building for cracks, structural weaknesses, or systems that don’t operate as expected under load.

Types of DAST: Passive and Active

DAST can be further divided into two types: Passive DAST and Active DAST. Each serves a unique purpose, and understanding the differences helps teams choose the right approach for testing.

• Passive DAST: This type of DAST scans your application without interacting with it in a way that alters its state. Passive DAST is like having an inspector quietly observe your building’s operation without touching anything or causing disruption. It detects vulnerabilities based on how the system behaves under normal conditions and monitors for misconfigurations or weak points.
•  
• Active DAST: In contrast, Active DAST interacts directly with the application, simulating attacks by injecting data or probing for vulnerabilities that might not surface during normal operation. It’s like having an inspector actively test the fire alarms or try to overload the electrical system to see if the building holds up. Active DAST can find more serious vulnerabilities but may disrupt the system or even cause damage if not handled carefully.

Both types of DAST provide valuable insights, but Passive DAST is less invasive, whereas Active DAST dives deeper into how the system responds to simulated threats.

Problems of DAST

While DAST is a powerful tool for uncovering security flaws, it has its limitations and challenges:

1. Limited Code Visibility: Since DAST operates at the application level (i.e., while the application is running), it can’t analyze the underlying source code. This means it might miss vulnerabilities buried deep within the code, especially if they don’t manifest until very specific conditions arise.
2. False Positives: Like any automated security test, DAST can sometimes produce false positives, flagging issues that aren’t real vulnerabilities. This can lead to wasted time and resources if developers are chasing down problems that don’t actually exist.
3. Performance Impact: Running DAST, especially Active DAST, can put a strain on the system being tested. The simulated attacks may slow down or even crash the application, making it difficult to balance security testing with maintaining operational performance.

Never Run DAST in a Production Environment

One of the cardinal rules of DAST is that it should never be run directly in a production environment. The reason for this is simple: DAST actively simulates attacks, and these tests can cause unexpected behavior, slow down system performance, or even crash the application.

For instance, running an SQL injection test in a live environment could unintentionally expose sensitive data or bring down critical services, disrupting business operations. Even Passive DAST, though less intrusive, could trigger alarms or cause performance dips depending on the complexity of the testing.

The best practice is to run DAST in a staging or pre-production environment that mirrors your production setup as closely as possible. This way, you can safely test the application for vulnerabilities without risking real-world consequences.

Conclusion: DAST as a Window Into Application Security

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) provides a powerful way to test how your application behaves when it’s running and interacting with the world. By simulating real-world attacks, DAST identifies vulnerabilities that static tests might miss, offering a deeper understanding of the system’s security.

However, DAST has its limitations and challenges, and should never be run in a production environment due to the potential for disruptions. By using DAST carefully and in the right environment, teams can gain invaluable insights into their application’s security, helping to ensure it stands strong in the face of real-world threats.