XBOW vs DAST
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.
01
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.
02
How They Compare
| Criteria | DAST | |
|---|---|---|
| What it finds | Exploits it built and proved | Known patterns, described by a tool or a model |
| What reaches your team | Only findings an independent validator has confirmed | Every match, to be triaged |
| Chaining | Chains vulnerabilities into real attack paths that scanners and point-in-time pentests never reach | One finding at a time |
| Output | A complete, reproducible trace and fix guidance for every finding | A severity list |
| Authenticated testing | Tests behind the login with the credentials you provide | Recorded login scripts |
| Where it stops | At the proof | At the alert |
| Where scanners still win | Run both. Point XBOW at what matters | Cheap breadth across thousands of low value assets, and checks that only need a scan |
03
FAQ
Talk to us.
A 5 minute overview of XBOW.
