In cybersecurity, waiting for a true positive threat to reveal vulnerabilities isn’t an option. That’s why proactive security teams turn to Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)—a way to test SecOps defenses by mimicking the moves attackers might take. These controlled simulations help organizations uncover weak points, validate detection capabilities, and improve response processes before a breach occurs.
In 2024, 85% of breaches involved compromised service accounts. As cyber threats evolve, security teams face the challenge of keeping pace while navigating complex environments and tools. BAS addresses this by running automated, real-world threat scenarios that provide actionable insights into the efficacy of defenses. It’s not just about identifying gaps—it’s about strengthening readiness to tackle adversaries head-on.
How BAS Tools Work
Breach and Attack Simulation tools emulate attacker tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to assess whether your security controls can detect, contain, and respond to hypothetical threats. They aim to answer critical questions: Are your defenses effective? How far could an attacker go if they exploited a vulnerability? Is your team’s response fast and decisive enough?
Designed to emulate realistic threats, BAS gives organizations the ability to test their defenses against specific attack scenarios. These tools provide a controlled yet comprehensive look at detection coverage, response capabilities, and overall readiness against cyber threats.
Your breach and attack simulation might look like this:
Preparation and Configuration: The first step in any simulation is identifying the scope of the test. Security teams determine which parts of the environment will be tested and set boundaries to avoid disrupting sensitive systems. Once the scope is defined, relevant attack scenarios are selected from the BAS tool’s library. These scenarios often focus on common attack vectors such as phishing, credential theft, or lateral movement.
Launching the Simulation: Many BAS tools use agent-based systems—scripts or software agents deployed across the network to simulate attacks. These agents mimic adversarial behavior, testing whether your defenses can detect and contain the activity. As the simulation progresses, the tool monitors each stage, flagging gaps or failures in detection and response.
Monitoring Activity and Gathering Evidence: Throughout the simulation, the BAS platform collects security logs from endpoints, firewalls, intrusion detection systems (IDS), and SIEM solutions. By collating all these logs, the platform sees whether your tools detected the “adversary” or remained silent. During this process, the tool notes how long it took to uncover suspicious activities. This includes the time between infiltration and alerting, which is critical in real-world scenarios. It will also confirm whether any automated response rules triggered as intended.
Analysis of Detected vs. Missed Activity: After the simulation, the BAS tool analyzes your environment’s response. Did your defenses contain the threat? Were automated response rules triggered correctly? If a key step of the simulated attack was missed at this stage, the tool pinpoints the failure so you can address it before moving forward.
Automated Reporting and Risk Scoring: Once the simulation is finished, the BAS platform compiles findings into a comprehensive report. These reports often include a risk score, summaries of successes and failures, and actionable recommendations. This information can be shared with security teams, auditors, or leadership to drive improvements.
After the breach and attack simulation is complete, the security team can take these findings and address any risks uncovered by the test. Usually this is done in another tool and can involve repeating the simulation multiple times, iterating each time until the fix is proven to work.
Why Breach and Attack Simulation Matters
The cybersecurity landscape is complex, and point-in-time assessments often fall short. BAS offers a continuous, repeatable approach to validation, enabling organizations to build routines and track improvements over time. Here’s why BAS is critical:
Automated, Repeatable Processes
Because BAS tools allow for automation, these simulations can run again and again, each time focusing on a particular section of your attack surface that your security team has prioritized. That means you can iterate until you’re confident that you’ve identified and fixed any vulnerabilities. If you spot a gap, you can fix it and then rerun the simulation to confirm the fix held.
Visibility into Security Tool Performance
BAS shines a spotlight on how well your detection tools—such as SIEM, EDR, and firewalls—are performing. It doesn’t just show whether tools are functioning; it reveals whether they’re catching malicious activity. This visibility helps teams identify blind spots and optimize tool configurations for stronger defense.
Confidence in Detection Coverage
Continuous validation fosters confidence across the organization—from front-line security analysts to executive leadership. When you consistently test your environment and produce evidence of detection capabilities, you can demonstrate readiness to stakeholders, compliance teams, and auditors. While no system offers complete assurance, data-driven insights from BAS significantly reduce uncertainty.
Assure Compliance with Security Frameworks (NIST, MITRE ATT&CK)
Frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK and NIST guidelines help organizations measure their coverage and readiness against threats. Many BAS solutions map simulations to these frameworks so you can confirm exactly which TTPs your team can detect. This ensures compliance for business in sensitive environments and provides confidence in your readiness to address threats.
Reporting and Security Trends
Another major benefit of BAS is the ability to measure progress over time. Regular simulations generate data that can be used to track trends, identify recurring gaps, and prove improvement to leadership. Additionally, many BAS tools incorporate threat intelligence updates, ensuring simulations reflect current attacker techniques.
BAS vs. Other Cybersecurity Testing
Breach and Attack Simulation is a powerful tool, but it’s not the only approach to security testing. Each method serves a unique purpose, and no single strategy can provide a full picture of an organization’s vulnerabilities. Here’s how BAS compares to other methods:
BAS vs. Penetration Testing
Penetration testing, or pentesting, involves hiring cybersecurity professionals to attempt to infiltrate your network. Pentesters often find subtle vulnerabilities and pivot in unpredictable ways—something that automated BAS tools can’t replicate. However, pentesting is uncommon due to its manual approach, whereas BAS offers continuous, automated validation that complements periodic pentesting.
BAS vs. Vulnerability Assessment
A vulnerability assessment scans your network to identify flaws, ranking them by severity. While useful, this method doesn’t validate whether security tools can detect or block exploits. BAS goes a step further, simulating attacks to measure detection and response capabilities.
BAS vs. Red Teaming
Red Teaming involves hands-on simulations led by skilled security professionals who mimic adversaries. These exercises often test detection and response processes in depth, providing insights beyond infiltration. While BAS focuses on automation, Red Teaming introduces unpredictability and creativity that tools can’t match. Many organizations use both approaches in tandem for a more comprehensive view.
Where Breach and Attack Simulation Falls Short
While BAS is a valuable addition to any security strategy, it has limitations:
Blind Spots From Simulation Gaps: While BAS can be scheduled to run frequently, it’s not continuous, and won’t immediately catch it if a new vulnerability arises. This may leave gaps that slip by if new vulnerabilities arise but there are no scheduled simulations.
Manual Fixes Cause Fatigue: These solutions highlight security control gaps or detection failures but can’t fix them automatically. Security teams must pivot to separate tools for tasks like patching, reconfiguring rules, or adjusting network device settings. This can slow down the resolution process and lead to fatigue.
Lack of Integration Slows Response: Many BAS tools operate independently from other security tools. Without deep integration to your entire ecosystem, your team is forced to jump from tool to tool adding delay and avoidable risk.
