The XBOW autonomous offensive security platform tests the security of running applications, as do dynamic application security testing (DAST) scanners. However, each has different testing approaches and returns distinct findings. A DAST scanner sends known attack patterns at an application and lists what might be vulnerable. XBOW attacks an application like an attacker would, chains findings into real attack paths, and has an independent validator confirm each path is exploitable before it reaches your team.
The Problem With the List
DAST returns a list of potential risks, it does not prove anything. The security team has to spend time triaging the list, and engineers will likely spend time on issues that were never exploitable. A scanner with a language model attached may improve this process, but it is still a scanner. It simply matches patterns faster and writes better descriptions.
How They Compare
| Criteria | DAST | |
|---|---|---|
| What it finds | Known patterns, described by a tool or a model | Exploits it built and proved |
| What reaches your team | Every match, to be triaged | Only findings an independent validator has confirmed |
| Chaining | One finding at a time | Chains vulnerabilities into real attack paths that scanners and point-in-time pentests never reach |
| Output | A severity list | A complete, reproducible trace and fix guidance for every finding |
| Authenticated testing | Recorded login scripts | Tests behind the login with the credentials you provide |
| Where it stops | At the alert | At the proof |
| Where scanners still win | Cheap breadth across thousands of low value assets, and checks that only need a scan | Run both. Point XBOW at what matters |
FAQ
Talk to us.
A 5 minute overview of XBOW.