BAS vs Automated Pentesting: Finding Security Gaps and Improving Posture

The strength of an organization's security posture is not measured by the number of tools it deploys but by its ability to withstand threats and maintain its resilience continuously. To achieve a resilient security posture, organizations test their posture with the most prominent Adversarial Exposure Validation (AEV) technologies: Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) and Automated Penetration Testing. Though both are designed to uncover weaknesses in an organization's defenses, they take distinct paths to achieve that goal.

In this post, the second installment in our BAS vs Automated Pentesting series, we explore the types of security gaps these solutions uncover and how each contributes to improving overall security posture.

Looking for a BAS solution? Check out our Free Trial and See Picus in Action

How BAS and Automated Pentesting Identifies Security Gaps

BAS and Automated Pentesting share a common goal of exposing gaps before attackers can exploit them. However, the nature of the gaps they identify differs based on their methodologies.

Breach and Attack Simulation primarily focuses on detecting gaps in security controls and detection mechanisms. For example, a BAS simulation might reveal that:

• An intrusion prevention system (IPS) rule is inactive, allowing known exploits to pass through undetected.
• An email security gateway failed to block a phishing attachment.
• A web application firewall (WAF) didn't prevent a simulated SQL injection attack.
• The SIEM didn't trigger alerts for C2 beaconing behavior.

These findings suggest that while the organization may have the right tools in place, their configuration, tuning, or coverage is insufficient. BAS solutions test security controls across a wide range of tactics and techniques and provide actionable remediation steps, such as updating an IPS signature, enabling a WAF rule, or adjusting EDR policy settings.

Some advanced BAS solutions go a step further by offering vendor-specific mitigation recommendations. These include ready-to-deploy configuration changes, detection rules, and tuning tips tailored to specific security tools like Palo Alto firewalls, Microsoft Defender, or Splunk SIEM. This enables fast remediation and reduces the mean time to detect (MTTD) and respond (MTTR).

Automated Penetration Testing, on the other hand, surfaces a different type of gap. These solutions emulate real attackers trying to chain multiple weaknesses into a successful breach. Automated Pentesting solutions are designed to simulate realistic attack paths, starting with a minor foothold and moving through the network to achieve high-impact goals.

For instance, Automated Pentesting might uncover that:

• A publicly accessible system is missing a patch.

• Weak or default credentials grant access to an internal resource.

• Misconfigured Active Directory permissions allow privilege escalation.

• Flat network architecture enables lateral movement without restrictions.

Each of these gaps, while potentially low risk in isolation, becomes far more serious when combined into an attack chain. Automated Pentesting solutions reveal how adversaries can navigate your environment, escalate privileges, disable defenses, and access sensitive data. These findings are typically documented in a format similar to traditional penetration test reports, including proof-of-concept chains, impact analysis, and prioritized remediation recommendations based on exploitability and business risk​.

A Comparison in Identifying Security Gaps and Improving Security Posture

While BAS and Automated Pentesting both serve the purpose of uncovering exposures, their methodologies reflect different layers of defense validation.

1. Method of Identification

BAS uses simulated attacks to validate detection and prevention capabilities. It injects known attack behaviors mapped to frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK into the environment and observes how security controls respond. These simulations are designed to be non-disruptive, safe for production, and rapidly repeatable.

Because of this, BAS is ideal for frequent testing across multiple vectors such as email, endpoint, network, and cloud. It's particularly effective at identifying configuration issues and security control inefficiencies that may not register as vulnerabilities but still leave the organization exposed.

Automated Pentesting takes a more goal-oriented, adversary emulation approach. It starts with a potential entry point and attempts to achieve a defined outcome, such as data exfiltration or domain takeover. Along the way, it actively exploits weaknesses to simulate how a real attacker might operate. This provides insights not only into what vulnerabilities exist but also how dangerous they are in the context of your environment.

2. Visibility and Prioritization

BAS delivers broad, security control-centric visibility. It tells you which techniques aren't detected or blocked and why. It allows teams to tune security tools proactively and prevent silent failure in detection systems. When used regularly, BAS functions as a continuous assurance layer for your defensive stack.

Automated Pentesting, by contrast, provides depth. It shows how weaknesses connect and whether compensating controls can prevent attack scenarios. This is critical for prioritization. A single misconfigured rule might not seem urgent until an Automated Pentesting simulation proves that it leads directly to domain admin access.

Used together, BAS and Automated Pentesting enable risk-based prioritization. If a BAS simulation shows that a specific tactic is undetected and Automated Pentesting proves it can be weaponized into a full breach, the urgency of addressing that gap skyrockets. Conversely, if a vulnerability is found but BAS confirms that multiple layers of controls prevent exploitation, the organization may choose to deprioritize the issue without ignoring it altogether​.

3. Impact on Posture Improvement

BAS improves security control effectiveness by exposing where tools like EDRs, SIEMs, and firewalls are failing silently. It provides concrete, technical guidance that enables fast remediation often down to the configuration level. In doing so, it empowers security teams to maximize the value of their existing investments.

Automated Pentesting strengthens overall architectural resilience by identifying systemic weaknesses. It answers bigger-picture questions: Can an attacker reach your critical assets? Are privilege boundaries respected? Is lateral movement possible? Fixing these issues might require broader architectural changes, such as segmentation, identity hardening, or zero trust implementation.

By combining both, organizations achieve not only security control assurance but also adversary-informed exposure validation. 

What's Next

In this second blog post of our "BAS vs Automated Pentesting" series, we explored how each technology identifies security gaps and contributes to improving overall posture. BAS provides coverage across a wide threat spectrum, exposing weaknesses in detection and prevention. Automated Pentesting drills deeper, uncovering the true attack paths adversaries might follow to compromise your environment. Together, they offer a comprehensive strategy for exposure validation and posture improvement.

In our next post, we'll shift the focus to business impact, specifically, how BAS and Automated Pentesting help security teams maximize the return on investment (ROI) from their existing controls. Stay with us as we continue unpacking the capabilities, differences, and combined strengths of BAS and Automated Pentesting throughout the series.