Topic starter
06/09/2026 9:02 am
TL;DR: Annual penetration tests now miss too much of a fast-changing attack surface, and FireCompass argues that continuous offensive security testing must fire on triggers, prove exploitability, and chain findings across apps, APIs, and identity to stay relevant. The governance question is no longer whether to test more often, but whether testing output is actionable enough to drive remediation and audit-ready control decisions.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by FireCompass: “How to Build a Continuous Offensive Security Testing Program in 2026”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when offensive security testing stays point-in-time?
A: Point-in-time testing misses the exposures created after the report is filed, including new subdomains, shadow apps, leaked credentials, and undocumented APIs.
Q: Why do credentials and shadow assets increase the value of continuous testing?
A: Because they often provide the first usable foothold in a real attack path.
Q: What do security teams get wrong when they treat scanner output as a complete risk picture?
A: The common mistake is assuming scanner severity equals real-world danger.
Practitioner guidance
- Define trigger-based testing rules Tie testing runs to events such as new deployments, new subdomains, fresh CVEs, or leaked credentials so cadence matches exposure change.
- Require exploit-validated findings Do not accept CVSS-only output as actionable.
- Map findings into attack chains Prioritise paths that combine initial access, credential abuse, and lateral movement rather than ranking issues only by individual score.
Bottom line: Annual pentesting is too slow for attack surfaces that change through daily releases, shadow IT, and leaked credentials.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
06/09/2026 9:02 am
Continuous offensive testing is now an identity governance problem, not just an AppSec exercise. The article shows that modern attack paths often begin with credentials, undocumented APIs, or shadow assets, then move through identity trust relationships. That means testing programmes must understand where access is created, reused, and abused, not only where code is vulnerable. Practitioners should treat offensive testing output as part of identity governance evidence, not just security reporting.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 44% of developers are reported to follow security best practices for secrets management, exposing a significant developer behaviour gap, according to the State of Secrets in AppSec.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should organisations govern continuous testing on production systems?
A: They should define strict scope boundaries, rate limits, logging, review gates where needed, and a kill switch before any live engagement begins. Continuous testing behaves like a privileged actor, so it needs the same kind of authority control and auditability expected of other high-risk systems. Governance has to be designed in, not added later.
👉 Read our full editorial: Continuous offensive security testing now needs identity-aware governance