They're pitching AI pentests — can it replace manual testing, or is it just a repackaged scan?

Right now, AI-powered tools are only good at matching known CVEs and beefing up report text. Autonomous tools still can't execute complex attack vectors, like logging into two separate user sessions to cross-pollinate role permissions or breaking the logical sequence of an API workflow.

The market right now is just a race to slap an "AI" label on every automated script and undercut prices. Ask for the draft contract; it probably states it's just a vulnerability scan and that results aren't guaranteed. The client's auditor will spot that immediately and reject it on the spot.

Last year, we submitted a similar autonomous scan report to an enterprise client. The report was 40 pages, but their audit team rejected it on day two. The reasoning was a lack of business logic validation and a high volume of false positives. In the end, we had to pay 5.200 EUR to get a manual test done.

Exactly which framework is your client's audit based on? ISO 27001, SOC 2, or their own internal security requirements? Picking a quote without knowing the auditor's acceptance criteria risks throwing money down the drain.

Ask the company quoting 1.200 EUR just one question: Are non-destructive proofs of concept manually generated for identified vulnerabilities? If their answer is evasive or if they just provide automated tool output, eliminate that proposal immediately.

we almost fell for the same trap. in the sales pich they made it sound like an elite hacker taking over the company but the sample report turned out to be just a colorful version of our usual weekly vulnerability scan log... anyway dont waste your money.

When comparing prices, look at the man-day calculation. The 4.500 EUR quote prices in an expert's dedicated time. The 1.200 EUR quote, on the other hand, is likely just the markup on a software subscription that runs a script on a server and spits out a templated PDF in the background.

We got stuck at the same point for a while. Any unwritten clause becomes a point of disagreement later, as both sides remember it differently.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Let me write how it's done in practice. Having backups accessible on the same network and with the same identity makes them part of the target.

Don't hesitate to ask; those who don't ask always pay more. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The discussion got scattered, let me summarize. Don't rely on a single measure; go layer by layer.

If you post the result here, it will help others too.

Saved.

I went through the same thing.

Timely topic.

Following. Hasty decisions become decisions you have to fix six months later.

The harder it is to reverse a decision, the slower you should make it. That's all, sorry if I went on too long.

There are three things to check when doing this. Everyone rushing into AI penetration testing gets stuck at the same point.

Good luck with that.

I was thinking the same thing. If the notification path is long, notifications don't arrive; missing notifications mean delayed incident detection.

Everything goes well for the first three months; problems arise in the fourth.

i went through the same thing and the real issue isn't the number but what it's based on.

I'm in the same situation, that's why I'm asking. Everything goes well for the first three months; problems arise in the fourth.

Hope this helps.