Simulate the Attack. Then Prove the Vulnerability Is Real.
Pentesterra runs scenario-driven attack chains mapped to MITRE ATT&CK against your controls, on a schedule. A simulation-only tool stops at "the control did not fire." Pentesterra backs every failed control with a real, non-destructive exploit - so you get a reproducible proof of concept, not just a red mark.
How it works
Scenario-driven kill chains, mapped to MITRE ATT&CK
Each simulation runs a full attack scenario - initial access, execution, privilege escalation, lateral movement, impact - the way a real intrusion unfolds, with every step mapped to an ATT&CK tactic and technique so it lines up with your detection coverage.
- →Recurring or on-demand simulation cycles
- →Per-step ATT&CK tactic and technique mapping
- →Internal, external, and hybrid scenarios
- →Aligned with your detection and response playbooks
Security control validation
The point of a simulation is not the finding - it is the answer to "did the control stop it?" Pentesterra runs the scenario against your existing preventive and detective controls and reports which ones held, which failed, and where you have drifted since the last run.
- →Preventive and detective control coverage per scenario
- →Control drift measured between assessments
- →Gaps ranked by exposure, not by scenario count
- →Evidence a control failed, not an assumption
Runs alongside scanning and pentest cycles
BAS is one module in the same platform as vulnerability management, network and web pentesting, and attack chain analysis. A simulation reuses the findings those modules already produced, so a failed control and the vulnerability behind it are one record.
- →Shares scope, assets, and findings with the other modules
- →No separate agent fleet to deploy for simulations
- →Feeds attack chain analysis as verified path steps
- →One risk view across simulation and scan results
A failed control comes with a working exploit
Simulation-only tools tell you a control did not fire. Pentesterra can also verify the underlying vulnerability with a real, non-destructive exploit, so the report leads with a reproducible proof of concept instead of a red mark you still have to investigate.
- →Non-destructive exploit verification behind each failed control
- →Reproduction steps and evidence attached to the finding
- →Isolated staging and production scopes
- →Optional human-in-the-loop approval before active steps
FAQ
What is breach and attack simulation?
Breach and attack simulation (BAS) runs safe, scripted attack scenarios against your live environment to test whether your security controls actually detect and stop them. Instead of a point-in-time exercise, it runs continuously or on demand and measures how control effectiveness changes over time.
How is BAS different from a vulnerability scanner?
A scanner enumerates weaknesses. BAS executes a full attack path and reports whether your controls held. Pentesterra combines both: the simulation shows the control gap, and exploit verification proves the vulnerability behind it is real and reachable.
Is it safe to run against production?
Yes. Simulations and exploit verification are non-destructive by default - no data deletion, no denial-of-service payloads, and nothing that reads or moves confidential data. Each run has an explicit scope, staging and production are isolated, and a human-in-the-loop mode can gate any active exploitation step behind analyst approval.
How does BAS relate to adversarial exposure validation?
In 2026 Gartner consolidated BAS, automated penetration testing, and automated red teaming into a single category, adversarial exposure validation (AEV), and positioned it as the validation stage of a CTEM program. Pentesterra delivers all three in one platform.
How often do simulations run?
On a schedule you set - nightly, weekly, or on every infrastructure change - or on demand before an audit or after a control change. Because scanner nodes work in parallel, coverage scales with the number of nodes rather than with a single queue.