Notifications
Clear all
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.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by FireCompass: How to Build a Continuous Offensive Security Testing Program in 2026
By the numbers:
- 40% and 70%, ive rates for DAST tools run between 40% and 70%, so teams end up triaging noise instead of exploitable risk.
Questions worth separating out
A: Start by linking validation to the events that actually change risk, such as deployments, configuration edits, dependency updates, and new integrations.
Q: Why do exposed credentials and shadow apps increase breach risk so quickly?
A: Because they shorten the path from discovery to workable access.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about SAST and DAST coverage?
A: They often treat the tools as substitutes rather than complementary controls.
Practitioner guidance
- Set trigger-based testing rules Define events that automatically start a new offensive test, such as new deployments, new subdomains, leaked credentials, or CVEs affecting your stack.
- Require exploit-validated findings Reject findings that do not include proof of exploit, reproduction steps, and attack-path context, because CVSS scores alone do not tell remediation teams what is actually exploitable.
- Map findings to kill-chain paths Prioritise multi-step chains that move from exposed access to lateral movement and impact, especially where identity reuse or credential exposure appears early in the sequence.
What's in the full article
FireCompass's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The full trigger model for continuous testing, including when to rescan after deployments, CVEs, and leaked credentials.
- The specific production-safe guardrails, such as scope enforcement, kill switches, and forensic logging.
- The full workflow for chaining findings across apps, APIs, and identity into exploit-validated attack paths.
- The benchmark and cost assumptions behind agentic offensive testing at scale.
👉 Read FireCompass's guide to building a continuous offensive security testing program →
Continuous offensive testing for 2026: are your controls keeping up?
Explore further
06/09/2026 9:02 am
Continuous offensive testing is becoming identity-aware security assurance, not just vulnerability validation. The article correctly shifts the discussion from periodic assessment to exploit-validated, change-triggered testing. That matters because many real attack paths begin with credentials, APIs, or access reuse, which places identity in the middle of offensive security rather than at the edge. For practitioners, this means testing programmes should treat secrets, access paths, and privilege boundaries as first-class test objects.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should organisations do after a finding is remediated in a continuous testing programme?
A: Retest it automatically. A closed ticket is not the same as a fixed condition, especially when deployments continue to change the environment. Use retesting to confirm the exploit path is gone, then keep that evidence for audit and governance reporting.
👉 Read our full editorial: Continuous offensive security testing now needs identity-aware governance
