Your pentest report looks clean. That might be the problem.
Run automated pentesting long enough, and the new findings start to dry up. By the third or fourth run, fewer issues appear. The report looks stable. Leadership reads "stable" as "secure." It usually isn't. The work slows down. The risk does not.
That gap is what a The Hacker News webinar with Picus Security sets out to close.
Autumn Stambaugh and Can Yüceel, with host James Azar, show what your tool validates, where it stops, and how to close what it leaves open. Register for the webinar.
Start with the core problem. A flat report can mean the obvious holes were fixed. It can also mean the tool has reached the edge of what it can see. Automated pentesting is often treated as full security validation. It is not.
Picus frames validation as six surfaces and puts automated pentesting on one of them, the attack path: whether an attacker can move through an environment. That leaves the other five unproven, including detection rules, cloud configurations, identity controls, and AI guardrails. Tuning may sharpen the scan, but it cannot turn an attack-path test into detection or cloud validation.
Here is the part most teams miss. When the tool exploits a technique, it cannot tell you whether your SIEM rule fired or your EDR raised an alert. It may prove that credential dumping or lateral movement is possible.
That still does not tell you whether the EDR blocked it, the SIEM logged it, or the SOC had enough signal to act. It proves a path exists. It says nothing about whether you would have caught an attacker using it.
That is the risk: mistaking a reachable path for a defended one. Save your seat for the session.
BAS and Automated Pentesting Answer Different Questions
Breach and attack simulation asks whether a control reacts to a known behavior: blocked, detected, logged, or missed. Automated pentesting asks how far an attacker could get through an exploitable path. Swap one for the other, and the gap disappears from the report, not from the environment.
The practical problem is prioritization. If a tool proves a path exists but your controls already block or detect it, that finding may not carry the urgency of one that works silently. Without control validation, teams rank risk with half the evidence missing. That is what the session focuses on: turning a pile of findings into a ranked queue based on whether controls actually caught the behavior.
If automated pentesting is treated as the whole validation program, this is the gap to check first. Register for the webinar.
Found this article interesting? This article is a contributed piece from one of our valued partners. Follow us on Google News, Twitter and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.