Sıla Özeren Hacıoğlu | 14 MIN READ

LAST UPDATED ON DECEMBER 31, 2025

A Complete Guide to Getting the Best Out of BAS Assessments

12:11

What Is a BAS Assessment?

A Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) assessment is a cybersecurity validation process that safely simulates real-world cyberattacks to measure how effectively an organization’s existing security controls prevent, detect, and respond to threats in a live production environment. It uses real attacker tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to validate the performance of security controls such as firewalls, EDR/XDR, SIEM, email, and cloud defenses without exploiting systems or disrupting business operations, providing evidence-based insight into actual security effectiveness rather than theoretical risk.

BAS Assessments and their Role in the CTEM Framework

Within Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM), BAS assessments serve the validation phase.

After CTEM scoping defines what matters, discovery identifies exposures, and prioritization ranks them, BAS provides proof by safely testing whether those exposures can actually be exploited and whether existing security controls stop or detect the attack.

This validation step turns theoretical risk into evidence, enabling confident mobilization of remediation across security and IT teams.

Gartner Positioning: From BAS Assessments to Adversarial Exposure Validation Component

Gartner has repositioned Breach and Attack Simulation under a broader category called Adversarial Exposure Validation (AEV). AEV is designed to operationalize the validation phase of CTEM at scale by delivering continuous, automated evidence of attack feasibility and defensive effectiveness.

In practical terms, Gartner’s view can be summarized as:

AEV = BAS assessments + automated penetration testing & red teaming practices

Where each component contributes distinct value:

BAS: Continuously validates prevention and detection security control gaps by safely simulating real attacker and malware techniques, such as CVE exploitation, privilege escalation, lateral movement, and impact, in production without disruption.
Automated Penetration Testing: Validates real-world exploitability by chaining vulnerabilities and misconfigurations, demonstrating how attackers can pivot across identities, assets, and trust relationships to reach critical systems such as sensitive databases or domain administrator access.

The Evolution of Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) Assessments Toward BAS 2.0

BAS 2.0 "wording" does not change how BAS operates, but how it is positioned within CTEM programs. In modern CTEM programs, BAS operationalizes the validation phase by proving whether prioritized exposures are truly exploitable in the organization’s real environment.

CTEM programs first prioritize exposures using signals such as CVSS, EPSS, asset criticality, and threat intelligence; BAS then validates those priorities through safe, real-world attack simulation. For example, a CVSS 10 vulnerability may be shown to be effectively mitigated by compensating controls, allowing its priority to be reduced (to 5-6) based on evidence rather than theory.

This shift reframes BAS from asking “does a control block a technique?” to “can an attacker realistically succeed here, and which validated exposures must be addressed first to reduce business risk?”

How Do BAS Assessments Work?

BAS assessments validate the effectiveness of security controls by safely emulating realistic adversary behavior across the full attack kill chain within an organization’s own environment. All activities are non-destructive and designed to have no operational impact.

BAS assessments continuously execute predefined and regularly updated attack scenarios based on real-world adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).

Which Security Controls Can You Test with a Continuous BAS Assessment?

A BAS tool validates the effectiveness of existing security controls; it does not introduce new tooling.

Enterprise environments typically run dozens of security technologies, often exceeding 100 in complex or regulated organizations. As configurations and policies change over time, control effectiveness cannot be assumed.

To deliver meaningful ROI, a BAS platform must integrate broadly with existing controls, validate them continuously, and detect drift caused by misconfiguration or environmental change. Without deep and wide integrations, security control validation is inherently incomplete.

Category	Examples of Security Controls Validated by BAS
Detection and Monitoring	Security Information and Event Management (SIEM), Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), Network Detection and Response (NDR)
Network and Perimeter Security	Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFW), Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS), Web Application Firewalls (WAF), Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
Email Security	Secure Email Gateways (SEG)
Endpoint Security	Endpoint Protection Platforms (EPP), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Extended Detection and Response (XDR), Anti-virus (AV) & Anti-malware (AM) protections
Data Protection	Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

Which Attack Scenarios Are Tested by a BAS Assessment?

Network Infiltration Attack Scenarios

In network infiltration attack scenarios, the goal of a BAS assessment is to validate the effectiveness of gateway- and host-level security controls during the delivery phase of the attack chain.

Attack Scenario	Description
Malicious Code Delivery	Ransomware, malware, spyware, botnets, keyloggers, backdoors, and APT-related payload downloads
Vulnerability Exploitation	Exploitation of application- and OS-level vulnerabilities (e.g., code execution, buffer overflow, information disclosure)
Network-Based Infiltration	Malicious file downloads over HTTP and HTTPS
Client-Side Attacks	User-initiated downloads simulating phishing links or malicious attachments
Gateway Security Validation	IPS, IDS, firewall, proxy, web gateway, sandbox, and gateway antivirus enforcement
Host-Level Validation	Endpoint protection controls validating file delivery outcomes

Email Infiltration Attack Scenarios

In email infiltration attack scenarios, the goal of a BAS assessment is to validate the effectiveness of email security gateways and related security controls in detecting, blocking, or altering malicious emails during the delivery phase of the attack chain.

Attack Scenario	Description
URL-Based Email Attacks	Emails containing malicious URLs in the message body that lead to malicious files or payloads
Attachment-Based Email Attacks	Emails carrying malicious files as attachments (e.g., Office documents, PDFs)
Phishing Email Delivery	Simulated phishing emails used as an initial access technique
Malicious Attachment Sanitization Evasion	Attachments designed to test content disarm and reconstruction (CDR) and antivirus inspection
Malicious URL Inspection Evasion	URLs tested against email scanning, URL isolation, and filtering mechanisms
Email Gateway Enforcement	Validation of Email Security Gateway controls blocking, modifying, or allowing emails
Firewall Email Inspection	Validation of firewall products that provide email scanning and filtering capabilities
Email Content Alteration Detection	Detection of whether URLs or attachments are stripped, rewritten, or sanitized by security controls
Inbox Delivery Validation	Determination of whether malicious emails reach the inbox or are blocked/quarantined
Agent-Based Email Fetching Attacks	Malicious emails fetched via IMAP, POP3, or MAPI to validate post-delivery controls
Agentless Email Simulation	Malicious emails validated using forwarding rules and verifier service without endpoint agents

Web Application Attack Scenarios

In web application attack scenarios, the goal of a BAS assessment is to validate the effectiveness of web security controls such as Web Application Firewalls, and IPS in detecting, blocking, or allowing malicious web requests during the exploitation and delivery phases of the attack chain.

Attack Scenario	Description
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)	Simulates injection of malicious scripts into web application inputs to validate whether security controls block or detect script-based attacks.
SQL Injection	Simulates malicious SQL payloads sent to web applications to test prevention and detection of database manipulation attempts.
Path Traversal	Simulates attempts to access unauthorized files or directories through crafted web requests to validate control enforcement.
Remote Code Execution (RCE)	Simulates payloads designed to trigger execution of arbitrary code via vulnerable web application components.

Endpoint Attack Scenarios (Windows, Linux, macOS, and Kubernetes)

In endpoint attack scenarios, the goal of a BAS assessment is to validate the effectiveness of endpoint security controls such as EDR, antivirus, and host-based protections in detecting, blocking, or allowing malicious execution, persistence, and privilege escalation activities across the endpoint attack chain.

Note: Although the following table is designed only for Windows endpoint attacks for simplicity, BAS assessments are expected to deliver endpoint attack scenarios across Windows, Linux, macOS, and Kubernetes, as Picus SCV does.

Attack Scenario	Description
Web-Delivered Endpoint Attacks	Simulates endpoint execution triggered by malicious documents or scripts delivered via web vectors, such as Office files, PDFs, JavaScript, HTA, and PowerShell payloads.
Network Infiltration Attacks	Tests whether endpoint controls detect or block malware execution after a non-interactive binary or script is delivered to the system.
Multi-Stage APT Attack Chains	Emulates realistic adversary workflows by chaining multiple endpoint actions across different file types and execution stages.
Living-off-the-Land Attacks (LOLBins)	Simulates abuse of legitimate Windows binaries and native commands to perform malicious actions without dropping obvious malware.
Privilege Escalation Attempts	Executes actions that attempt to elevate privileges on the endpoint through system and configuration manipulation.
Persistence Techniques	Simulates methods used to maintain access by modifying registry keys, scheduled tasks, and file system artifacts.
Defense Evasion Techniques	Tests endpoint defenses against evasion behaviors such as staged execution, obfuscation, and trusted binary misuse.
Credential Access (Endpoint-Local)	Simulates endpoint-level credential access techniques that are safe and fully rewindable.
Host Discovery Activities	Executes system discovery actions to enumerate users, processes, and system information.
Data Collection & Staging	Simulates local data access and preparation behaviors prior to exfiltration, without requiring outbound connectivity.

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Attack Scenarios

In data exfiltration scenarios, the goal of a BAS assessment is to validate the effectiveness of data loss prevention (DLP) controls at the host and network levels in detecting, blocking, or allowing the unauthorized transfer of sensitive data across different protocols, file formats, and obfuscation techniques.

Attack Scenario	Description
PII Data Exfiltration	Simulates exfiltration of personally identifiable information such as names, addresses, national IDs, credit card numbers, phone numbers, and similar sensitive data.
Financial Data Exfiltration	Tests leakage of financial information including credit card data, bank details, CVV numbers, and transaction-related data.
PHI Data Exfiltration	Simulates exfiltration of protected health information such as medical records, insurance details, and healthcare-related data.
Source Code Exfiltration	Tests unauthorized transfer of sensitive source code files and intellectual property.
Protocol-Based Exfiltration	Simulates data exfiltration over HTTP, HTTPS, and TCP to validate network and host DLP controls.
File-Based Exfiltration	Simulates exfiltration using common file formats such as TXT, CSV, XML, DOCX, JSON, SQL, ZIP, and RAR files.
Image-Based Steganographic Exfiltration	Simulates hiding sensitive data inside image files (JPEG, PNG, GIF) using steganography techniques.
Audio-Based Steganographic Exfiltration	Simulates embedding sensitive data into audio files such as WAV and MP3 formats.
Video-Based Steganographic Exfiltration	Simulates concealing data inside video files such as MP4 and AVI formats.
Executable-Based Exfiltration	Simulates embedding sensitive data inside executable files (EXE, DLL) for covert data transfer.
Obfuscated Exfiltration Techniques	Tests DLP detection against encoded, encrypted, compressed, fragmented, or obfuscated data using methods such as Base64 encoding and XOR encryption.
Multi-Variant Exfiltration Attempts	Simulates multiple variants of the same exfiltration attack, where success is achieved if any single variation bypasses DLP controls.
Custom Data Exfiltration Scenarios	Allows organizations to simulate exfiltration using their own documents, data samples, and custom threats aligned with internal DLP policies.

Top Six Benefits of Running a BAS Assessment

BAS testing holds paramount importance in the cybersecurity domain for several reasons.

Proves which defenses actually work in production

BAS moves beyond assumptions and configurations by safely simulating & emulating real attack techniques in live environments, showing which security controls truly prevent or detect attacks and which silently fail.

Reduces noise by separating exploitable risk from theoretical risk

By validating attacks end to end, BAS helps teams deprioritize vulnerabilities that are already mitigated by compensating controls, allowing focus on exposures that can realistically lead to impact.

Improves detection engineering and SOC performance

BAS exposes gaps in logging, alerting, and correlation by testing whether SIEM, EDR, EPP, and XDR tools generate the right alerts at the right time, enabling precise tuning instead of rule sprawl.

Enables continuous, measurable security improvement

Unlike point-in-time testing, BAS provides repeatable assessments that establish a baseline and track improvement over time, making security posture changes visible and defensible to leadership.

Accelerates remediation with actionable, control-specific guidance

A BAS assessment doesn’t just identify gaps; it maps failures directly to concrete prevention or detection fixes (e.g., firewall rules, EDR policies, SIEM logic), shortening the path from finding to resolution.

Optimizes security investment and justifies spend (CISO perspective)

BAS testing shows which tools deliver real risk reduction and which do not, enabling CISOs to defend renewals, reallocate budget away from underperforming controls, and demonstrate ROI to executives with evidence rather than intuition.

Top 6 Vendors Providing BAS Assessments Reviewed by Gartner

Gartner Peer Insights highlights the top BAS assessments, showcasing their effectiveness in strengthening cybersecurity defenses. BAS assessments are designed to simulate real-world attack scenarios, evaluate the performance of security controls, and identify gaps in an organization’s defenses.

The leading platforms enabling effective BAS assessments include:

Picus Security
Cymulate
AttackIQ
SafeBreach
XM Cyber
Pentera

These BAS assessment solutions offer advanced features, such as comprehensive threat libraries and detailed reporting, to help organizations test and improve their security posture. For more insights into how these platforms deliver BAS assessments, users can explore detailed feedback on Gartner Peer Insights.

If you want to read an in-depth comparative analysis of these six vendors, click here.

How Does a BAS Assessment Differ from Traditional Assessment Methods?

Comparison Table for BAS Assessments vs. Traditional Security Assessment Methods

TL:DR; Breach and Attack Simulation represents the only approach capable of delivering safe, continuous, and automated adversarial validation of security controls across the entire attack chain, while red teaming and penetration testing remain essential for human creativity and advanced adversarial thinking.

Capability	Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)	Red Teaming	Penetration Testing	Vulnerability Assessment
Automation	✓	✗	✗	✓
Continuous Assessment	✓	✗	✗	✓
Assessing Security Controls	✓	Limited	✗	✗
Actionable Mitigation	Ready-to-use mitigation content	Limited with generic suggestions	Limited with generic suggestions	Limited with software patches
Assessment Scope	Entire kill chain	Limited by predefined objective	Limited by predefined scope	Limited by predefined scope
Quick Response to New Threats	Testing new threats in 24 hours	No response until new engagement	No response until new pentest	Plugin updates happen within 3–5 days
Risk-free Assessment	✓	✗	✗	✓

What Is the Difference between a BAS and Automated Penetration Testing?

Short answer: they validate different things, in different ways.

Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) continuously tests whether your security controls actually detect or block known attacker techniques. It focuses on control effectiveness, coverage, and drift across email, endpoint, network, and cloud, safely and repeatedly.
Automated Penetration Testing simulates how an attacker chains vulnerabilities and misconfigurations to reach high-impact goals. It focuses on exploitability and attack paths, showing how far an attacker could go if controls fail.

A Comparison Table: BAS Assessment vs. Automated Penetration Testing

Dimension	BAS Assessments	Automated Penetration Testing
Primary goal	Validate whether security controls detect, block, or alert on known attacker techniques	Validate real exploitability by chaining weaknesses into full attack paths
Core question answered	“Do our defenses actually work?”	“How far can an attacker go if they get in?”
Testing approach	Technique-level attack simulations mapped to real-world TTPs	Autonomous, goal-driven attacker emulation across the environment
Scope of validation	Prevention and detection layers (EDR, SIEM, WAF, firewall, email, cloud)	Identity, privilege escalation, lateral movement, and crown-jewel access
Depth vs. breadth	Broad coverage across many techniques	Deep exploration of fewer but realistic attack paths
Operational safety	Designed for continuous, non-disruptive production testing	Safe by design, but more interactive with the environment
Frequency	High frequency (daily, weekly, continuous)	Lower frequency, scenario-based runs
Output	Control effectiveness metrics, detection gaps, tuning guidance	Exploitable attack paths, impact analysis, pentest-style findings
Best used for	Control validation, detection engineering, posture tracking, drift detection	Attack path validation, privilege abuse discovery, impact proof
Role in CTEM	Operationalizes the validation step with continuous evidence	Confirms which exposures lead to real business impact

Which One Do You Need? BAS vs. Automated Penetration Testing

Start with BAS

Deploy Breach and Attack Simulation to continuously validate that prevention and detection controls are working as intended, identify configuration drift, and establish a reliable security effectiveness baseline.

Add Automated Penetration Testing (once BAS is established)

Use automated penetration testing to assess real breach impact by validating exploitability, lateral movement, and the potential reach of an attacker who has already gained initial access.

Operate Both as a Unified Program

Use BAS for continuous control assurance and detection readiness, and automated penetration testing for depth and impact analysis. Together, they provide comprehensive, evidence-based security validation and support higher security maturity.

How Often Should Organizations Conduct BAS Assessments?

Short answer:

Continuously, with focused checkpoints.

Practical guidance:

Continuous / automated BAS → run daily or weekly to catch configuration drift, new control gaps, and emerging threats.
After change events → re-run BAS immediately after patches, rule changes, new tools, cloud changes, or major deployments.
Threat-driven runs → trigger ad hoc BAS when new ransomware campaigns, KEVs, or sector-specific threats appear.
Executive reporting cadence → roll results up monthly or quarterly for trend tracking and CTEM metrics.

Rule of thumb:

If your environment changes weekly (most do), annual or quarterly assessment is not enough. Continuous BAS with targeted scenarios is the modern baseline.

Picus Security Control Validation (SCV) for Continuous, Automated BAS Assessments

Picus Security Control Validation (SCV) gives security leaders continuous, objective proof that their security investments are working. Powered by BAS, it validates whether existing controls actually stop real-world attacks, rather than relying on configuration status, vendor claims, or theoretical risk scores.

As part of a CTEM program, Picus SCV enables executives to distinguish between exposures that pose real business risk and those already neutralized by compensating controls. By safely simulating current and emerging attack techniques in production, it confirms which risks are truly exploitable and require action.

This evidence-based approach allows CISOs to prioritize remediation where it matters most, reduce wasted effort on low-impact issues, and clearly demonstrate risk reduction progress to boards, regulators, and stakeholders, with confidence backed by proof, not assumptions.

👉 Validate which exposures actually work against your defenses. Start your demo now.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Here are the most frequently asked questions about BAS Assessment.

What Is a Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) Assessment?

BAS assessments are cybersecurity evaluations that simulate real-world attack scenarios to test an organization’s security controls. These simulations help organizations proactively identify vulnerabilities, validate their defenses, and improve their security posture.

Are BAS Assessments Completely Safe to Run Continuously?

BAS assessments are designed to be risk-free. They simulate attacks in controlled environments without disrupting business operations, ensuring continuous validation without impacting production systems.

How Do BAS Assessments Differ from Penetration Testing or Vulnerability Assessments?

Unlike traditional methods, BAS assessments are automated, continuous, and capable of testing the entire attack kill chain. They provide actionable mitigation steps and assess security controls dynamically, whereas penetration testing and vulnerability assessments are periodic and often limited in scope.

How Often Should Organizations Run BAS Assessments?

Organizations should run BAS assessments continuously to maintain a proactive security posture. Continuous assessments are especially important during active malware campaigns or exploitation attempts targeting specific industries or regions.

What Are the Main Benefits of BAS Assessments?

BAS assessments offer several key benefits, including proactive security posture improvement, continuous validation of multi-layered defense strategies, and data-driven insights for better communication with decision-makers. These assessments help organizations identify gaps, mitigate risks, and stay prepared for evolving threats.