Introduction: The Rise of Automation in Cybersecurity
Cybersecurity threats are evolving fast, and keeping up feels like running on a treadmill set to max speed. That’s why more organizations are turning to Continuous Automated Red Teaming (CART). With its 24/7 automated attack simulations and real-time vulnerability insights, CART is a powerful tool in any cybersecurity arsenal. But as automation takes center stage, one question keeps popping up: Can CART really replace the traditional manual red teaming and penetration testing (PT) methods??
Table of Contents
Comparison Table: Continuous Automated Red Teaming (CART), Traditional Red Teaming, and Penetration Testing
| Aspect | CART | Traditional Red Teaming | Penetration Testing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Approach | Automated, Continuous | Human-driven, Periodic | Human-driven, Project-based |
| Frequency | 24/7, Continuous | Scheduled, Typically Annually | On-demand, Typically Quarterly/Annually |
| Creativity & Adaptability | Limited, Predefined TTPs | High, Adaptive to dynamic scenarios | Moderate, Focused on specific scope |
| Best For | Ongoing attack simulation and validation | Emulating advanced, targeted threats | Assessing specific systems or assets |
| Use of AI/Automation | High, Incorporates AI agents | Minimal, Primarily human intelligence | Some automation, but largely manual |
| Cost Efficiency | Scalable, Lower marginal cost | Expensive, Skilled professionals needed | Varies, typically project-based fees |
| Risk of Misuse | Potentially high if used by novices | Low, Requires expert human oversight | Moderate, depends on tester's skill |
| Human Involvement | Needed for setup, configuration, oversight | Central, from strategy to execution | Essential for complex analysis |
| Limitations | Lacks true human ingenuity, creativity | Not scalable, limited frequency | Snapshot view, not real-time |
What Can Be Automated in Red Teaming and Penetration Testing?
CART excels in automating specific aspects of red teaming and PT engagements, particularly when dealing with known TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) and certain steps of the MITRE ATT&CK framework.
Automated Aspects of Red Teaming
Reconnaissance: Tools like CART can continuously scan the external attack surface, identifying exposed assets and gathering OSINT data.
Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities: CART can execute predefined exploits against identified vulnerabilities, especially those in public CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures).
Lateral Movement Simulations: CART can automate the execution of certain attack paths within a network, following mapped TTPs from the ATT&CK framework.
Persistence and Privilege Escalation: By automating standard approaches (e.g., registry persistence or known privilege escalation exploits), CART can simulate attacker behavior without manual input.
The Role of AI and Agentic Approaches in CART
Advanced CART solutions are beginning to incorporate AI-driven agents that enhance automation. These agents use machine learning to:
Adapt Attack Strategies: AI agents can change tactics mid-attack based on system responses, making the simulation more dynamic.
Learn from Outcomes: Through reinforcement learning, AI agents improve their attack methodologies over time, offering a more persistent and evolving threat simulation.
Decision-Making Automation: Agentic approaches enable CART tools to make semi-autonomous decisions, such as selecting the next step in an attack chain based on environmental cues.
Why Full Automation Can't Replace Human Red Teamers
Despite its strengths, CART cannot entirely replace human ingenuity and creativity, particularly in complex scenarios:
Novel Attack Techniques: Automated tools rely on pre-programmed TTPs and attack paths. Human red teamers, however, can invent new methods on the fly, especially when encountering unique systems or bespoke applications.
Social Engineering: While CART can send out phishing simulations, it cannot perform nuanced social engineering that requires human intuition and adaptability.
Business Logic Testing: Automated tools struggle with identifying flaws in business processes or application logic that do not align with traditional vulnerability patterns.
Contextual Decision Making: Red teamers analyze the impact of each step, choosing strategic moves that might not align with automated decision trees.
Physical and Hybrid Engagements: Physical security testing, such as attempting physical access to premises or blending in during covert operations, remains firmly within the human domain.
The Danger of Automation: Can Novices Create Havoc with CART?
The power of CART lies in its automation, but this also brings risks if used improperly by inexperienced users:
Potential for Disruption: Poorly configured automated attacks can lead to unintended service disruptions or security incidents.
Lack of Safeguards: Without the expertise to configure rules and limits, novice users might trigger automated exploits against sensitive systems, causing real-world damage.
Compliance Risks: Misuse of CART tools could lead to violations of security and privacy regulations if tests are not properly scoped.
The Future: A Hybrid Approach
The likely future of cybersecurity testing is not a binary choice between CART and traditional red teaming but rather a hybrid approach:
Continuous Baseline Testing with CART: Automated red teaming tools provide persistent, broad coverage, identifying low-hanging fruit and common vulnerabilities.
Targeted Human Engagements: Skilled red teamers will focus on advanced attack scenarios, creative testing, and sophisticated threat emulation.
Purple Teaming Opportunities: By integrating CART with blue team activities, organizations can create a continuous feedback loop to strengthen defenses.
Conclusion: Augmentation, Not Replacement
CART offers invaluable benefits in automating repetitive and predictable tasks, freeing human experts to focus on complex and creative challenges. While full automation of red teaming and penetration testing is not feasible—nor advisable—CART plays a critical role in modern cybersecurity strategies. As AI-driven agents become more sophisticated, the synergy between automated tools and human expertise will define the future of proactive security testing.
The Ultimate CTEM Experience: When Humans and Automation Join Forces
At reconn, we seamlessly integrate automation with human expertise through our Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) approach. Here’s how we do it:
Automated Attack Surface Management (ASM): Our ASM tools continuously map your digital assets, identifying potential exposures 24/7.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (RBVM): We integrate your existing vulnerability scan data into our RBVM platform, ensuring a comprehensive and prioritized view of risks.
Penetration Testing (PT) Management: Our platform provides end-to-end management of ongoing PT engagements, giving you real-time insights and tracking progress seamlessly.
Inbuilt DAST and SAST Scanners: With dynamic and static application security testing built-in, we proactively identify and address vulnerabilities in your applications.
Human-Led Red Team Engagements: Our expert red teamers conduct advanced threat simulations, leveraging creativity and strategic thinking to uncover complex vulnerabilities.
Orchestrating Security Excellence: By combining automated tools with human ingenuity, Reconn creates a symphony of security measures—precision-tuned and always in harmony with your organization’s needs.
With Reconn, you’re not just managing threats—you’re setting the tempo for security excellence across your digital ecosystem.
Stay Ahead or Stay Hacked: The CTEM Advantage
Cyber threats don’t wait, so why should you? reconn’s Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) keeps you ahead with:
EASM – Find what’s exposed before attackers do.
RBVM – Fix what actually matters, not just what’s loud.
ASPM – Secure apps at every stage, not just before release.
CSPM – Cloud misconfigs? Not on our watch.
PTaaS – Real-world attack simulations, on demand.
