The Response on Penetration Testing, Red Teaming, Remediation, and Related Concepts

Summary (Table of Contents)

1. Introduction: Penetration Testing (Pentest) Defined
2. Types of Penetration Tests: Approaches Based on Information Level
   • Black Box Testing
   • Grey Box Testing
   • White Box Testing
   • Combining Approaches
3. Penetration Testing vs. Red Teaming
4. Penetration Testing vs. Incident Response and Remediation
   • Incident Response
   • Remediation: Definition and Phases (Containment, Eviction, Eradication)
5. Automation of Penetration Tests
   • Rationale for Automation
   • Integration with MITRE ATT&CK and PTES
   • Description of a Proposed Automated Tool
6. Tools Used in Penetration Testing and Adversary Simulation
   • Burp Suite
   • Sqlmap
   • Exegol
   • vPENTEST
   • Core Impact
   • Caldera
7. Specific Contexts and Examples
   • Enterprise Environment (Grey Box)
   • API Pentesting
   • Social Engineering Pentesting
   • Cybersecurity Maturity in Local Authorities (Collectivités)
   • APT Attacks
8. Comparison Points
   • Manual vs. Automated Pentesting
   • vPENTEST vs. Core Impact
   • MITRE ATT&CK vs. Cyber KILL Chain
9. Organisations and Frameworks Mentioned

---

Detailed Response

1. Introduction: Penetration Testing (Pentest) Defined

   Based on the sources, a penetration test, also known as a pentest (a contraction of "penetration test"), is a method used to evaluate the security of an information system by simulating the actions of attackers. Its objective is to detect exploitable vulnerabilities for malicious purposes so that they can be corrected. Pentesting is part of offensive cybersecurity.

2. Types of Penetration Tests: Approaches Based on Information Level

   Penetration tests can be conducted using different approaches, which refer to the level of information available to the pentester at the start of the test. These are commonly categorized as black box, grey box, and white box tests.

   • Black Box Test: In this configuration ("black box test"), the auditor only knows the name, address, and IP of the web server being audited. The initial step is to search for information about the target. This simulates an external attacker with no prior knowledge of the internal system.
   • Grey Box Test: The auditor has, in addition to the information available in a black box test, application accounts to connect to the website. The grey box approach provides an "intermediate" level of information. A proposed solution for automating internal network penetration tests specifically uses a grey box approach in an enterprise environment.
   • White Box Test: The auditor possesses, in addition to the information from black box and grey box tests, the source code and associated documentation for the application. This provides the "maximal" level of information.
   • Combining Approaches: It is mentioned that a pentest can combine two or even three of these approaches for a more "efficient" result depending on the defined objectives [the sources generally describe these as distinct types, but implicitly, real-world testing might blend elements].

3. Penetration Testing vs. Red Teaming

   The sources refer to Red Teaming. Red Team is mentioned as a type of security team. While Red Teaming and penetration testing share a similar goal of enhancing system and digital infrastructure security, they are presented as distinct activities. Pentesting typically has a more specific scope and focuses on testing specific application exploits, allowing exercises to be conducted more quickly than Red Team exercises. Red Team exercises can span weeks or months, depending on the scope and objectives. If time is limited, focused penetration testing may be more appropriate to identify specific vulnerabilities that can be fixed faster. Automated Red Teaming is suggested as a way to potentially reduce costs.

4. Penetration Testing vs. Incident Response and Remediation

   Penetration testing is distinct from activities like incident response and remediation. Incident response involves managing an ongoing security incident or crisis. Remediation is defined as the project to regain control of a compromised information system and restore it to a sufficient operational state following a major incident. It is an exceptional action that occurs in a time of rupture from the normal cycle of continuous security improvement.

   The remediation process, in the context of a major incident, is sequenced into three main phases: Endiguement (Containment), Éviction (Eviction), and Éradication (Eradication). It is important not to rush these steps, as failure in one can compromise the next.

   • Incident Response: While incident response includes managing the crisis and investigating the incident, remediation is the specific project of restoring the system. The remediation project is part of the overall incident response or crisis management organization.
   • Remediation: Definition and Phases (Containment, Eviction, Eradication):
     • Endiguement (Containment): Actions taken at the beginning of an incident to contain its scope. This involves slowing down the attacker's activity to give defenders time and visibility. Examples include cutting internet access via a firewall, securing backups by disconnecting them, or segmenting the network. These measures are often disruptive and not intended to be permanent.
     • Éviction (Eviction): Aims to eliminate the adversary from the core of trust ("cœur de confiance") from which the rest of the information system is managed. This phase involves creating or recreating a trustworthy enclave controlled by the defenders. This heart of trust is the foundation upon which the security of the entire system is built. Objectives include creating a system and network base out of the attacker's reach, establishing reliable administration means, and building trusted authentication and system management services. Actions can include recreating a virtualization infrastructure or switching a compromised Active Directory to a healthy one. Eviction operations require meticulous preparation and often involve a planned, sudden shift from the compromised system to a healthy one to reduce attacker opportunities.
     • Éradication (Eradication): The final step before returning to normal. During this phase, defenders seek to eliminate any persistence of the attacker in the information system and implement measures to hinder their return. This work is done from the heart of trust established during eviction. Eradication on large systems can be extensive and is often phased by sector. It involves suppressing attacker access and eliminating potential return paths. Deploying an EDR and supervision on workstations is an example action. It is generally impossible to achieve complete certainty of total eradication at a large scale; efforts are prioritized on sensitive points and critical areas.

   A penetration test, by contrast, is conducted before an incident to proactively identify vulnerabilities. It is not part of incident response or remediation.

5. Automation of Penetration Tests

   Some sources discuss the automation of penetration tests.

   • Rationale for Automation: Automating penetration tests is proposed to reduce the significant human time spent on these tests, eliminate repetitive tasks, and increase the productivity of Red Team members. Automated tests are described as fast and easy to use, especially when combined with manual analysis. Automation can help simulate real attacks and prepare companies to manage them effectively. However, automated tools may lack creativity and ingenuity compared to human attackers, as they rely on predefined rules and scripts.
   • Integration with MITRE ATT&CK and PTES: One source proposes integrating the PTES (Penetration Testing Execution Standard) process with Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) from the MITRE ATT&CK framework. This framework is a knowledge base based on observations of real attacks. A project described aims to develop a tool to assist with penetration testing by automating grey box network penetration tests in an enterprise environment. The solution allows for the execution of main TTPs from MITRE ATT&CK and generates reports with detailed results to measure the enterprise's security level and provide security recommendations.
   • Description of a Proposed Automated Tool: A detailed project aims to develop an application for automating penetration tests. This application was inspired by the advantages and functionalities of vPENTEST and Core Impact, particularly regarding the graphical interface. The proposed solution focuses on automating grey box network penetration tests in an enterprise environment. Key functionalities include secure authentication for users (admin or pentester), management of penetration test projects, management of automated attacks allowing selection of techniques, specifying targets, and defining parameters, and the generation of detailed reports. The application's backend was developed using the Python programming language and the Flask framework, storing data in a SQLite database. The frontend uses HTML, CSS, JS, and Bootstrap. The application implements various techniques, such as collecting domain properties (WHOIS - T1590.001) [28, Table 5], system information discovery (T1082) [Table 5], and ARP cache poisoning [7, Table 5] (though note the specific TTP identifier for ARP cache poisoning, T1590.001, seems associated with WHOIS in one table [Table 5] and not directly listed for ARP poisoning in the same table, indicating a potential discrepancy or specific implementation detail). The generated reports provide a comprehensive view of the relationship between techniques, procedures, potential threats, and detected vulnerabilities, along with recommendations for improving security posture. Future perspectives for this tool include enriching it with more TTPs from MITRE ATT&CK, particularly in the exploitation phase, expanding the scope to Linux and Windows machines, improving secure development and security lines, adding documentation, and enhancing interfaces.

6. Tools Used in Penetration Testing and Adversary Simulation

   The sources mention several tools used in penetration testing or adversary simulation:

   • Burp Suite: A commercial tool developed by PortSwigger specifically for web application pentesting. Its main features include a web proxy and a vulnerability scanner. It has a modular design with extensions and a user-friendly interface with an active community and detailed documentation.
   • Sqlmap: An open-source tool that automates the detection and exploitation of SQL injection vulnerabilities. It can connect to various databases [Source mentions Sqlmap generally in the context of tools used or considered in the automated tool project, but the specific excerpt is not provided in the sources. This relies on conversation history and prior knowledge].
   • Exegol: Described as an environment dedicated to offensive security [Source mentions Exegol, but the specific excerpt is not provided in the sources. This relies on conversation history and prior knowledge].
   • vPENTEST: Developed by Vonahi Security, it bases its tasks on the MITRE ATT&CK framework, Vonahi Security's experience, and their pentest framework. It offers real-time status updates, notifications for identified activities and threats, and security recommendations. It provides a user-friendly interface and simplifies reporting and analysis. It receives regular support and updates.
   • Core Impact: A commercial penetration testing tool developed by Core Security Technologies. It is designed to help security teams conduct advanced penetration tests. It is typically deployed locally on a Windows machine with an integrated SQL database. Core Impact offers regular support and updates. Its user interface might require some familiarity with penetration testing and reporting. It utilizes automated Rapid Penetration Tests.
   • Caldera: An open-source platform developed by MITRE. It is designed to automate the emulation of adversary behaviors and support security teams. It allows for the automated execution of attack scenarios based on the MITRE ATT&CK framework. It has an intuitive web user interface and is extensible through plugins, like integrating with Atomic Red Team.

7. Specific Contexts and Examples

   • Enterprise Environment (Grey Box): The proposed automated penetration testing tool focuses specifically on grey box network penetration tests within an enterprise environment. This context is relevant as the tool is being developed in collaboration with Mare Nostrum Advising Groupe (MNA Groupe), a cybersecurity consulting and training company with offices in France, North Africa (Algeria), and West Africa (Senegal). MNA Groupe has a certified training structure ("MN Advising Cert") and works with clients to improve their information security skills.
   • API Pentesting: The sources mention penetration testing of APIs as a specific type of test. Vulnerabilities in APIs can include improper object authorization management, authentication flaws, excessive data exposure, lack of rate limiting, incorrect function authorization management, access control defects based on user roles, mass assignment issues, configuration problems, injection flaws, and lack of logging and monitoring.
   • Social Engineering Pentesting: A social engineering pentest is used to evaluate employees' reactions and behaviors to attacks like phishing, vishing, smishing, and physical intrusions. This type of pentest can be conducted independently or as part of a technical pentest.
   • Cybersecurity Maturity in Local Authorities (Collectivités): A study by Cybermalveillance.gouv.fr examined the cybersecurity maturity of French local authorities with fewer than 25,000 inhabitants. This demographic represents 99% of French communes. The study found that 1 in 10 surveyed local authorities reported being a victim of one or more attacks in the past 12 months, primarily phishing (46%). A significant portion (67%) of elected officials and agents believe cybersecurity is everyone's responsibility. For the majority of these local authorities, IT security management is outsourced to external providers. Common security measures include backups (85%), antivirus (85%), and firewalls (62%). Budget constraints are a significant barrier to improving cybersecurity, cited by 34% of respondents. Key needs identified were awareness training for agents and elected officials (64%), security tools and solutions (55%), diagnostics and specialized advice (51%), and financial aid (47%).
   • APT Attacks: Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) are discussed as a significant threat, having evolved over time. Examples of known APTs mentioned include Operation Buckshot Yankee (2008), Night Dragon (targeting oil/energy companies for information theft) (2009), Stuxnet (targeting Iranian nuclear centrifuges for sabotage) (2009), and Operation Aurora (targeting companies like Google, Adobe) (Late 2009). Stuxnet is highlighted as having changed the view of security in both industrial control systems (ICS) and general IT. Simulating APT attacks is a practice discussed in the context of cybersecurity.
   • Other Incidents/Threats: TikTok leaks and their effect on cybersecurity posture are mentioned. Business Email Compromise (BEC) is noted as a lucrative type of fraud requiring fewer resources than some others. Ransomware is also mentioned as a prominent cybercrime.

8. Comparison Points

   • Manual vs. Automated Pentesting: Manual and automated penetration tests both have their significance. Automated tests are fast and easy when combined with manual analysis. Manual tests are ideal for evaluating the impact of exploiting a vulnerability. Automated tools may lack the creativity and ingenuity of human attackers.
   • vPENTEST vs. Core Impact: These two commercial tools are compared in one table. Key differences include the developer (Vonahi Security for vPENTEST, Core Security Technologies for Core Impact), interface user-friendliness (vPENTEST is more intuitive with simplified reporting, Core Impact may require more familiarity), and process basis (vPENTEST uses MITRE ATT&CK and Vonahi's framework/experience, Core Impact uses automated Rapid Penetration Tests). Both offer regular support and updates. The automated tool project drew inspiration from both, particularly for the graphical interface.
   • MITRE ATT&CK vs. Cyber KILL Chain: A table lists the difference between these two frameworks [Table 3]. The sources do not detail the specifics of this comparison within the provided text, but they are both presented as methodologies or knowledge bases relevant to understanding or simulating adversary behavior [2, 18, 22, 30, Table 3].

9. Organisations and Frameworks Mentioned

• MITRE ATT&CK: A knowledge base based on actual observations of attacks, providing Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs). It is used as a framework for automating adversary emulation and attack scenarios.
• PTES (Penetration Testing Execution Standard): Mentioned as a process for penetration testing that can be integrated with MITRE ATT&CK TTPs.
• ANSSI (Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d'information): The French National Cybersecurity Agency. This organization is the source of the document on cybersecurity attacks and remediation, providing guidance on managing major security incidents and selecting external providers for remediation. They publish various guides on crisis management and technical remediation.
• Cybermalveillance.gouv.fr: A public service in France providing assistance and information on cybersecurity, particularly for individuals, small businesses, and local authorities. They conducted the study on the cybersecurity maturity of French local authorities.
• Mare Nostrum Advising Groupe (MNA Groupe): A cybersecurity consulting and training company involved in the development of the automated penetration testing tool. They have international presence and offer training programs. They employ pentesters.

Amadou Lamine Diouf
Expert Consultant | Trainer | Information Systems Auditor

🌐 Website: www.truetechnologie.com
📧 Email: lamine.diouf@truetechnologie.com/diouf78@gmail.com
📞 Phone: +221 77 856 27 66