Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
19/08/2026 3:26 pm
TL;DR: APIs now account for 17% of published vulnerabilities and 43% of newly added CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities are API-related, according to Escape’s analysis, which argues that SAST, DAST, AI pentesting, and manual testing each catch different classes of misuse. The core issue is governance, not tooling volume: teams need layered testing that follows API change speed, not perimeter-era assumptions.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Escape: LLMjacking: How Attackers Hijack AI Using Compromised NHIs
By the numbers:
- In 2025, APIs accounted for 17% of all published security vulnerabilities.
- 43% of newly added CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities were API-related.
Questions worth separating out
Q: What breaks when API security testing is not tied to authorization checks?
A: Testing that only looks for generic vulnerabilities can miss the most damaging API failures, especially broken object-level authorization and token misuse.
Q: Why do APIs create so much risk in modern web applications?
A: APIs often carry the real business logic of an application, including data access, account actions, and administrative functions.
Q: How can security teams tell whether API risk controls are actually working?
A: Look for reduced abuse volume, fewer successful automated attacks, and clearer visibility into which non-human clients are making requests and why.
Practitioner guidance
- Map API ownership to identity and access controls Assign every public and partner-facing API to a named owner who is accountable for authentication, object-level authorization, and token lifecycle controls.
- Run DAST on authenticated and unauthenticated paths Test live endpoints with valid tokens, missing tokens, and modified object identifiers so broken object-level authorization and missing access checks are visible before release.
- Use AI pentesting for multi-step abuse paths Apply adversarial testing to high-risk workflows where an attacker could chain a race condition, a workflow gap, and an authorization failure into a single exploit.
What's in the full article
Escape's full analysis covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Endpoint-by-endpoint testing patterns for SAST, DAST, AI pentesting, and manual review.
- The article's own comparison table showing which test type fits each SDLC phase.
- Practical examples of business-logic flaws that require adversarial reasoning rather than signature matching.
- How Escape positions continuous testing alongside existing AppSec workflows.
👉 Read Escape's analysis of API security testing methods and runtime abuse paths →
API security testing: are your controls catching real abuse?
Explore further
19/08/2026 4:10 pm
API security testing is now an identity control problem as much as an AppSec problem. APIs enforce who or what can act on data, which means broken authorization is an access-governance failure, not just a coding defect. When service identities, tokens, and delegated sessions are abused through API paths, IAM teams inherit the blast radius even if the defect originated in engineering. Practitioners should treat runtime authorization coverage as part of identity governance, not a separate technical afterthought.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations prioritise DAST before manual API pentesting?
A: Yes, for most teams. DAST gives continuous runtime coverage across a broader API surface, while manual testing is best reserved for high-risk workflows, novel logic, or cases where chained abuse needs human reasoning. The right model is automated baseline coverage first, then targeted manual depth where the business risk justifies it.
👉 Read our full editorial: API security testing gaps leave business logic flaws exposed
