+- Hack Forums (https://hackforums.net)
+-- Forum: General Topics (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: World (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=445)
+---- Forum: News and Happenings (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=89)
+---- Thread: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions (/showthread.php?tid=6310344)
Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - Stanley - Oct 6, 2025
Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions
Car makers don’t trust blueprints. They smash prototypes into walls. Again and again. In controlled conditions.
Because design specs don’t prove survival. Crash tests do. They separate theory from reality. Cybersecurity is no different. Dashboards overflow with “critical” exposure alerts. Compliance reports tick every box.
But none of that proves what matters most to a CISO:
The
https://thehackernews.com/2025/09/crash-tests-for-security-why-bas-is.html
RE: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - Vectura - Oct 6, 2025
That’s a powerful analogy , cybersecurity really does need its version of crash testing. Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) tools are like digital crash tests: they validate if defenses actually work, not just if they should work on paper.
RE: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - plops - Oct 6, 2025
Makes sense. You have to get out there and get dirty to understand how to improve something.
RE: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - The Joker - Oct 6, 2025
The cost of your car includes those that were crashed on purpose (someone had fun smashing).
Let that sink in.
RE: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - B3A - Oct 6, 2025
(Oct 6, 2025 05:48 AM)The Joker Wrote: The cost of your car includes those that were crashed on purpose (someone had fun smashing).
Let that sink in.
It was needed at a point tbh
RE: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - The Joker - Oct 6, 2025
(Oct 6, 2025 06:17 AM)B3A Wrote: It was needed at a point tbh
Totally agreed.
But someone definitely had fun crashing new cars. You can't deny that. lol.
RE: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - DAL-SHA - Oct 6, 2025
BAS is like kicking the tires for real — better to test your defenses than assume they’ll work. Talking’s easy, proving’s harder.
RE: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - leste - Oct 6, 2025
Blueprints don’t save lives. Crash tests do. Same goes for cybersecurity.
RE: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - Aeowulf - Oct 6, 2025
The reality for implementation of Defense in Depth. Individual vulnerabilities don't matter, "compliance" doesn't matter, if you're not actually secure. Always been a fan of good pentesting.
RE: Crash Tests for Security: Why BAS Is Proof of Defense, Not Assumptions - Fish - Oct 7, 2025
I feel like this would be so cool to see in person