Fuzzing: A Worthwhile Alternative to Penetration Testing?

Ayush Parti
September 23, 2022

Penetration testing is a process of identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities in systems or applications. While it's an essential part of cyber security, it can be expensive and time-consuming. Fuzzing, on the other hand, is a more lightweight alternative that can be used to find some easily exploitable vulnerabilities in a system.

But is fuzzing enough as a standalone cyber security protocol? What is fuzzing in the first place? In this post, we'll take a deep dive into the concept of fuzzing to determine its effectiveness and whether it can replace penetration testing.

What is Fuzzing?

Fuzzing, also known as fuzz testing, is a type of software security testing that involves providing invalid or random data to a program in order to check for crashes or other undesired behaviour. Fuzzing is often used to find security vulnerabilities in software.

The word "fuzzing" or fuzz testing refers to the injection of massive amounts of random inputs known as fuzz. The goal of this fuzz is primarily to make a system crash. For example, if a fuzzer input causes a program to crash, that may indicate that the program contains a buffer overflow vulnerability.

Fuzzing can be used with both stand-alone programs and network services. Network fuzzing is sometimes used to test for denial-of-service (DoS) vulnerabilities. In general, fuzzing is an efficient way to find software bugs that can lead to security vulnerabilities. Fuzzers are available for many different programming languages and file formats. There are fuzzers for PDF files, image files, and Microsoft Office documents. Fuzzing is not perfect, however, and may miss some bugs. In addition, fuzzing can generate many false positives, making it difficult to determine which bugs are real and which are not. Fuzzers are usually used in conjunction with other types of testing, such as static analysis and penetration testing.

What are the different types of fuzzing?

There are two main types of fuzzing: black box fuzzing and white box fuzzing.

Black box fuzzing treats the program under test as a black box, with no knowledge of its internal workings. To conduct black box fuzzing, the tester simply provides invalid input and observes the program's behaviour.

White box fuzzing, on the other hand, requires knowledge of the program's internals. With this knowledge, the tester can specifically target areas that are more likely to cause problems.

Both black box and white box fuzzing can be effective in finding software vulnerabilities. However, white box fuzzing is generally more efficient, since it can be targeted at specific parts of the code. As a result, white box fuzzing is often used in conjunction with black box fuzzing to create a more comprehensive testing approach.

Application Fuzzing – What's It For?

Application fuzzing is a type of fuzz testing that specifically focuses on testing the functionality of an application by feeding it invalid inputs. By doing so, application fuzzing can help expose coding errors and vulnerabilities that could lead to crashes or other problems. Application fuzzing is commonly used to test applications that interact with untrusted data, such as web browsers and email clients.

To carry out application fuzzing effectively, testers need to have a good understanding of the target application and its expected behaviour. They also need to design intelligent fuzzing algorithms that can generate test cases that are likely to uncover defects. When done well, application fuzzing can be an invaluable tool for helping to make the software more secure.

When it comes to software testing, there are two main approaches: symbolic execution and concolic execution. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, so it's important to understand the differences before deciding which one to use.

Symbolic execution is a powerful technique that can find errors in programs with very little code coverage. However, it can also be very slow and expensive, especially when fuzzing large programs. Concolic execution, on the other hand, is much faster and more efficient. It works by first executing the program with concrete inputs, and then using symbolic execution to explore different paths through the code. This approach is especially effective at finding bugs that only occur when certain conditions are met. However, it can miss some errors if the concrete inputs don't trigger them.

So which technique is better? It depends on your needs and resources. If you're looking for a quick and dirty way to find bugs, concolic execution is probably your best bet. If you have the time and money to invest, symbolic execution might be a better choice. Either way, both techniques can be useful in finding errors in programs.

What are some major benefits of fuzzing?

  • Fuzzing can help to find software vulnerabilities.
  • Fuzzing can help to improve software quality.
  • Fuzzing can help to reduce false positives in security testing.
  • Fuzzing can help to find memory leaks and other resource-related issues.
  • Fuzzing can help to find logic errors in software.

Can Fuzzing Replace Pen Testing?

Fuzzing is undoubtedly a useful tool for detecting vulnerabilities, but it is not a comprehensive solution. First, fuzz testing is reliant on chance; even if a bug is present, there's no guarantee that the fuzz test will find it. Second, fuzz testing can create false positives, meaning that a potential issue is flagged even though there's no actual problem. Finally, fuzz testing isn't always thorough; it may miss certain types of bugs or only test a small portion of the code. As a result, fuzz testing should be used in conjunction with other software testing methods to ensure that all potential issues are found. So the short answer to whether fuzzing can replace pen testing is: not by a long shot. Pen-testing on the other hand provides a more in-depth investigation of your web applications security by simulating a full-fledged attack.

Think of fuzzing as a complementary tool in your arsenal of proactive cyber security measures. As a standalone solution, it may not be enough for ensuring robust security, but when used alongside penetration testing it greatly enhances your web security and drastically reduces the possibility of exploits.

Leverage Heyhack to Complement Fuzz Testing with Pen Testing

Heyhack's powerful pen-testing solution can be seamlessly used in conjunction with fuzz testing to give you a clear picture of your web application's security posture. Heyhack automatically tests web applications and APIs for vulnerabilities and generates reports compliant with SOC 2 and ISO 27001 requirements. If you'd like to know more, book a demo and we'll be glad to help!

Start pentesting today

Sign up for a free trial for Heyhack and start your first penetration test today.
Our trial is free for 14 days and requires no commitment whatsoever.
Sign Up for a Free TrialBook a Demo

Start your first automated penetration test today

Sign up for a free trial to Heyhack and start your first penetration test within a matter of minutes. You can also book a demo session with one of our security experts that will help you get started.