A Comprehensive Guide to Application Security Testing Methods

Application security testing has become a fundamental part of the software development lifecycle. The types of AppSec testing vary greatly, each with its own unique methodologies, strengths, and limitations. These types include Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST), Software Composition Analysis (SCA), Penetration Testing, Fuzz Testing, and Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP).

Each type of testing plays a unique role, and understanding their benefits and drawbacks is crucial to leverage them for maximum security effectively. This blog delves into a comprehensive overview of these types of AppSec testing.

1. Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

• Explanation: SAST is also known as "white-box testing." This method analyzes the application's source code to identify potential vulnerabilities and coding errors. It's typically performed early in the development cycle and can locate flaws such as buffer overflows, race conditions, and SQL injection vulnerabilities.
  ‍
• Example: You might use SonarQube to perform SAST on your application's code.
  ‍
• Pros: SAST allows early detection of vulnerabilities, which can be more cost-effective than catching them later. Also, it can provide detailed information about the codebase, which can help developers understand where vulnerabilities are located and how to fix them.
  ‍
• Cons: SAST can produce a high number of false positives and negatives. It can also be time-consuming and may struggle to identify code vulnerabilities that are only exploitable in specific runtime situations.

2. Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

• Explanation: DAST, or "black-box testing," involves testing an application in its running state. It checks for vulnerabilities an attacker could exploit, including cross-site scripting, SQL injection, and server configuration mistakes.
  ‍
• Example: Tools like OWASP ZAP might be used to perform DAST on a running web application, and Aptori is purpose built tool to perform DAST for modern cloud native applications.
  ‍
• Pros: Dynamic Application Security Testing can find vulnerabilities in running applications that might be missed by SAST, especially those related to configuration, deployment, or environment. It also doesn't require source code access, making it suitable for third-party applications.
  ‍
• Cons: DAST can be slow because it tests the application in real time. Also, it typically provides less detailed information than SAST about where vulnerabilities are located in the codebase.

3. Semantic Application Security Testing (SemAST) 

• Explanation: SemAST is a specialized form of "black-box testing" that focuses on evaluating the logic of an application while it's operational. It aims to identify vulnerabilities related to business logic that attackers could exploit, including intricate authentication and authorization issues like BOLA and IDOR, which could result in data breaches.
  ‍
• Example: Tools such as Aptori can conduct SemAST on running cloud-native applications.
  ‍
• Pros: Semantic Application Security Testing is tailored to each application's unique logic, allowing it to uncover business logic vulnerabilities often overlooked by DAST and SAST methods. What sets SemAST apart is its use of artificial intelligence to comprehend the application's logic, enabling it to test not just the surface but also the underlying workflows. This results in more comprehensive coverage and quicker test execution. Additionally, SemAST does not necessitate access to the source code, making it a viable option for assessing third-party applications.
  ‍
• Cons: Being a black-box testing method, SemAST has the limitation of not being able to specify the exact location within the codebase where a vulnerability exists.

4. Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST)

• Explanation: IAST combines aspects of both SAST and DAST. By embedding agents within the application and monitoring data flow during runtime, IAST can identify vulnerabilities with a high degree of accuracy.
  ‍
• Example: Tools like Veracode might be used for IAST testing.
  ‍
• Pros: IAST provides detailed runtime information, which can help to pinpoint vulnerabilities. It also offers greater accuracy than SAST or DAST alone and can work with custom code and libraries/frameworks.
  ‍
• Cons: IAST requires application instrumentation, which might not always be feasible. It can also impact application performance.

5. Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

• Explanation: SCA aims to identify vulnerabilities in open-source components and third-party libraries within an application. Modern software development often relies heavily on these components, and each one can potentially introduce vulnerabilities.
  ‍
• Example: A tool like OWASP Dependency Check could be used for SCA.
  ‍
• Pros: SCA can identify vulnerabilities in external components, which are often overlooked. It's also good for ensuring license compliance and managing risks associated with third-party components.
  ‍
• Cons: SCA tools need help comprehensively covering all possible components and libraries. They also rely on vulnerability databases, which might not be fully current.

6. Penetration Testing (Pen Testing)

• Explanation: In pen testing, security professionals simulate cyberattacks to identify vulnerabilities in the system. The goal is to find potential exploits before an actual attacker does.
  ‍
• Example: A professional penetration tester might use tools like Metasploit or Burp Suite to try to gain unauthorized access to an application.
  ‍
• Pros: Pen testing can reveal real-world attack paths and vulnerabilities that automated testing might miss. It's excellent for finding complex, multi-step exploits.
  ‍
• Cons: Penetration testing can be expensive and time-consuming. It also requires highly skilled testers to be effective.

7. Fuzz Testing (Fuzzing)

• Explanation: Fuzzing is an automated testing method that involves feeding random or invalid data inputs into a software system to find crashes and other failures that could reveal security vulnerabilities.
  ‍
• Example: A tool like Aptori can be use to perform a AI-driven fuzz test of an application.
  ‍
• Pros: Fuzzing is excellent at finding edge case vulnerabilities and can be highly automated, making it good for large codebases.
  ‍
• Cons: Fuzzing can produce many results, many of which may not be exploitable vulnerabilities. It also requires careful management of test cases and results.

8. Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP)

• Explanation: RASP tools are integrated into an application or application runtime environment, and they analyze the app's behavior and context during operation to protect against real-time attacks.
  ‍
• Example: A tool like Open RASP could be used.
  ‍
• Pros: RASP can protect applications in real-time, offering protection that traditional testing methods can't. It can also provide detailed data about attacks, including where in the code they're occurring.
  ‍
• Cons: RASP can impact application performance. It might only be suitable for some applications, depending on their architecture and the technology stack.

AppSec is not a one-size-fits-all scenario, and the best approach depends on the specific needs and context of the application.If you're aiming to discern when to employ Static versus Dynamic testing, delve into the SAST vs DAST comparison. A comprehensive application security testing strategy should employ a combination of these diverse testing methodologies to address various potential vulnerabilities at different stages of the development lifecycle.