Automation vs. Pentesters: Can AI Replace Humans?

Every year, companies are increasingly integrating automated tools into their cybersecurity processes. This leads to a growing perception that human involvement in this field will soon become irrelevant. This view is often supported by executives focused on cost optimization, as well as entry-level IT specialists who rely on ready-made solutions.

However, automation is just one auxiliary tool that comes with both advantages and disadvantages that must also be considered. Let’s examine the key aspects of manual penetration testing and automated solutions to assess their future prospects for use.

1. Speed and scalability: Machines win on time, but lose on flexibility

Automated tools can scan thousands of IP addresses or domains in a matter of minutes, operate 24/7, and provide continuous monitoring. This is especially valuable for large companies that need to regularly check massive volumes of data across their infrastructure. However, these tools operate strictly within their programmed algorithms and cannot easily adapt to unconventional situations. A specialist conducting a manual pentest works more slowly but can improvise and test scenarios that fall outside predefined patterns.

2. Cost and resources: Saving money doesn’t always mean safer systems

Automation helps reduce expenses: running a scanner costs less than hiring a team of experts. This appeals to smaller companies with limited budgets. But the effectiveness of this approach doesn't always meet expectations, as scanners can generate hundreds of false positives. In the end, human analysis is still required to focus on real threats and minimize the risk of "blind spots." As a result, the total cost of fixing issues after automated tests can end up being higher than when using human resources from the start.

3. Ethics and accountability: AI can’t act morally

Artificial intelligence operates based on algorithms but doesn’t grasp the consequences of its actions in terms of universal human values. Moreover, if an automated tool mistakenly disables a system or creates a pathway for a data breach, the responsibility still lies with the people who configured it.

Human pentesters follow a code of ethics and understand the boundaries of acceptable intervention. In fields like privacy, healthcare, and finance, this is critically important, breaches or even testing can have massive consequences. According to studies, 76% of cybersecurity experts believe that the ethical risks of AI in security are still not properly regulated. Therefore, relying on machine tools without human oversight is not just a technological issue, it’s a moral one.

Automated tools play a key role in cybersecurity, but their capabilities are significantly limited. That’s why the optimal approach to security testing is a combination of automation and human expertise, especially in the face of growing cyber threats.