From SAST and DAST to Full-Stack Penetration Testing in Modern Cloud Environments

Your scanners are only doing exactly what they’re built to do. The problem is, they weren’t built for this.

And by this, I mean cloud-native systems. 

Cloud-native systems move fast, change constantly, and span layers most scanners can’t see. You’re running containerized apps, dynamic APIs, and ephemeral infrastructure, but relying on static scans built for static codebases. That leaves critical gaps untouched: misconfigured cloud assets, excessive permissions, and chained exploits across services.

Table of Contents

1. The false confidence of SAST and DAST
2. Why full-stack pentesting is different…and necessary
3. Cloud-native architectures break legacy AppSec assumptions
4. You can run full-stack testing without slowing down engineering

‍

The false confidence of SAST and DAST

Most teams still treat SAST and DAST like a safety net. You run static analysis in your pipeline, maybe toss in a dynamic scan before release, and assume the major risks are handled. But if you’ve reviewed a real breach postmortem lately, you know how often those tools miss what matters.

SAST is great at catching syntax-level issues, such as unvalidated inputs, insecure functions, and hardcoded secrets. On the other hand, DAST will pick up a few runtime problems if your app is already running and exposed. But neither of them understands how your system is actually built or what the app does in production.

‍

Here’s where things fall apart:

Most findings are irrelevant

Ask any security team, and they’ll tell you: these tools generate more findings than anyone can reasonably handle. Most of them aren’t critical, aren’t exploitable, or just aren’t relevant to the actual system risk. By the time you’ve triaged the results, what’s left is often a small fraction of what was originally flagged. And even then, you’re stuck trying to push fixes through teams that have already moved on to the next sprint.

Alerts come too late to act on

In many environments, scans run after code is merged or even deployed. So when something serious finally shows up, the code is already live, and the devs are already focused on something else. It’s technically coverage, but it’s not timing that helps you stay ahead of risk. You’re catching issues after the window to prevent them has closed, and by then, the cost of fixing them is higher, both in time and business impact.

Scanners don’t understand your system

SAST and DAST tools work on isolated inputs. They’re looking at a code file or an endpoint instead of the full context. They don’t know which services trust each other, how data flows between them, or what happens when identity or access controls are misconfigured. That lack of architectural awareness is exactly why cross-service risks, logic flaws, and chained exploits get through without a blip.

This is where attackers thrive. They don’t look for the kind of bugs scanners were built to find, but for how systems break down when trust is assumed. Static or dynamic analysis isn’t designed to surface those pathways.

You can pass every scan and still be exposed

We’ve seen environments that tick every AppSec box on paper (green pipelines and clean scan reports) but still end up compromised. The root cause usually isn’t a missed CVE. It’s a design flaw no one modeled. It’s a trust boundary that never got reviewed. It’s an API that wasn’t supposed to be exposed but got pushed live anyway.

None of that shows up in a scan, and that’s the point. If you’re depending on these tools to give you complete coverage, you’re missing what attackers are actually exploiting.

‍

Why full-stack pentesting is different…and necessary

There’s a fundamental difference between scanning for issues and simulating an actual attack. Scanners look for known patterns. They run in isolated contexts and report findings based on predefined rules. But real attackers don’t follow your checklist. Instead, they chain flaws together, jump across services, and exploit systems based on how everything fits together.

Full-stack pentesting is a deliberate exercise in identifying how your architecture, configurations, and workflows behave when actively targeted from the first misstep in your CI pipeline to the final access path in production.

It starts with context instead of signatures

Unlike scanners that analyze code or endpoints in isolation, full-stack testing starts by understanding how the system is built. That includes your APIs, authentication flows, data exposure points, and the way trust is established between services. From there, testing focuses on what an attacker could do if they had the same vantage point.

It’s not about checking for missing headers or outdated libraries, but about identifying where your architecture creates opportunity and then proving it with actual exploitation paths.

It covers every layer of your stack

Modern applications are more than just code. A realistic security test needs to account for how everything interacts across these layers:

• APIs: Testing how business logic behaves under stress, misuse, or in edge cases. This includes IDOR, broken object-level auth, and chaining API calls in ways the developer didn’t expect.
• IAM roles: Misconfigured identities, over-permissioned service accounts, and trust relationships that allow lateral movement between services or environments.
• Infrastructure as Code (IaC): Misconfigured resources, overly broad access policies, exposed credentials, and inconsistencies between environments that attackers can exploit to pivot deeper.
• CI/CD pipelines: Hardcoded secrets, unsafe build steps, missing validation, and other points where an attacker can insert or escalate without being noticed.
• Business logic: The decisions your app makes based on assumptions (like how discounts apply, how user roles work, or how approvals flow through) are often the weakest link. Scanners don’t understand this, but attackers do.

It proves the impact

One of the most important differences is how results are delivered. Scanners tell you there’s a potential issue. Full-stack testing shows what happens when that issue is exploited. That context is what helps teams prioritize. It’s also what makes risk clear to leadership.

For example, a scan might report that an S3 bucket is publicly accessible. A full-stack test will show you that it holds customer invoices and is writable from a misconfigured Lambda. That changes the conversation from should we fix this? to how did this ship?

Cloud-native architectures are dynamic. Services scale, roles shift, and deployment patterns evolve quickly. A point-in-time scan gives you a limited view, but full-stack testing adapts to how your system actually works and changes with it.

This is what it looks like if your goal is real coverage. You’re not just spotting technical missteps, but also understanding how they add up to real and exploitable paths. And that’s the only way to reduce risk in a way that holds up under pressure.

‍

Cloud-native architectures break legacy AppSec assumptions

The way we build and ship software has changed. You’ve got hundreds of microservices, ephemeral environments, and CI/CD pipelines pushing to production multiple times a day. Yet most security testing still assumes you’re deploying a monolith every two weeks.

That mismatch is why legacy testing tools fall short. They were designed to look at code and endpoints, instead of including dynamic infrastructure and distributed services. If you want to reduce risk in a cloud-native stack, your security tests need to align with how the system actually behaves, and that means testing far more than just code.

Microservices multiply your attack surface

With microservices, every service introduces new entry points, trust relationships, and data flows. The risk is in how they interact. A single insecure service-to-service call or missing auth check between internal APIs can give an attacker a clear path across the environment.

Legacy tools miss this entirely. They don’t understand how service A trusts service B, or how tokens are passed between them. And if there’s a misconfigured route or forgotten endpoint, it likely won’t show up in a static scan.

Serverless introduces invisible execution paths

Lambda functions, background workers, and event-driven logic change how code runs (and how it’s exploited). These aren’t exposed like a traditional web app, but they handle sensitive data, perform privileged operations, and often run with overly broad IAM roles.

We’ve seen real-world incidents where a Lambda had full write access to production S3 buckets, triggered by events from a public source. There were no API calls to scan, no ports to probe, and no obvious path in. But the access was there, and no one noticed until after the fact.

Security testing has to account for these execution paths, their triggers, and their permissions aside from what’s exposed to the outside world.

IaC and CI/CD carry real security debt

Infrastructure as Code is supposed to make things predictable. But it also makes security issues repeatable. A single misconfigured module can provision dozens of insecure resources before anyone catches it.

Add that to a CI/CD pipeline that stores secrets insecurely, skips validation checks, or allows unaudited changes to reach production, and you’ve got a clear chain of exposure. None of which will show up in a SAST or DAST report.

We’ve seen credentials hardcoded into Terraform variables, pipelines that skip tests on specific branches, and build tools that pull dependencies from public sources with no integrity checks. These are real high-impact gaps, and they’re all part of what attackers now test for.

Modern applications are built and deployed in ways that create new types of security risk, and those risks don’t show up unless you’re looking at the full system. To keep up, security testing needs to cover architecture, runtime behavior, and deployment workflows instead of just the codebase. That’s what makes modern AppSec real.

‍

You can run full-stack testing without slowing down engineering

The biggest hesitation with deeper testing is speed. Engineering teams move fast. You’re shipping multiple times a day, infrastructure changes by the hour, and there’s pressure to hit every release deadline. But skipping deep testing isn’t saving time. At the end of the day, it’s only deferring risk. The good news is you can embed full-stack testing into your pipeline without dragging down delivery.

It’s about where you test, how often, and who owns the results.

Shift from static scans to targeted and continuous testing

You don’t need full-blown pen tests on every commit. What works is layering tests where they fit naturally:

• Run lightweight behavioral tests at merge to catch basic architectural missteps early.
• Schedule deeper full-stack simulation during staging or just before high-risk deployments.
• Use automated threat modeling to keep pace with system changes and highlight design-level flaws as they emerge.

You get better coverage, but the critical difference is that this testing reflects how your system actually works instead of what’s just in the codebase.

Give testing a clear owner

Full-stack testing needs ownership, and that can’t live in a backlog. Assign responsibilities based on your org’s maturity:

• Your AppSec team should define scope, align findings to business risk, and embed guidance in dev workflows.
• Red teams or offensive security can handle high-impact simulations or targeted abuse cases.
• External experts are valuable for new architectures, high-risk launches, or where internal coverage is thin.

The key is making sure someone owns not just the test, but the insights, follow-ups, and context mapping.

Prioritize with a triage model that reflects real risk

One of the fastest ways to lose trust is to flood engineering with unactionable findings. Your triage model should filter by:

• Business impact: What happens if this flaw is exploited?
• Exploitability: How easy is it to reach or chain?
• Ownership: Is the affected system actively maintained?
• Context: Does the risk change based on the environment or user role?

Use this to drive resolution. Triage should take hours and not days. And findings should come with context that helps the developer fix the issue without extra overhead.

Keep feedback inside the tools teams already use

Your findings live in PDFs or require meetings to interpret? Then there’s very little chance that they will get addressed. Results should show up in the tools teams already use, such as GitHub, Jira, and Slack, with actionable guidance tied to code, services, or components. 

When you do this well, full-stack testing doesn’t slow anything down. It actually saves time by catching issues early, focusing attention on what matters, and giving teams the context to fix problems without the usual back-and-forth.

‍

Scans aren’t enough anymore

If your current security program is built around static and dynamic scans, you’re seeing a narrow slice of the risk and assuming the rest is covered. But modern systems don’t fail because of a missing input check or an outdated library. They fail when architectural trust is abused, when configs drift, and when business logic opens a door no one notices.

That’s what full-stack penetration testing exposes. Not just the presence of flaws, but how they behave under real attack conditions, and what that means for your environment, your data, and your business.

If you want security that keeps pace with how your teams build, you need to test the way attackers think. That means context-aware, system-level testing. It means moving beyond surface-level checks and into actual simulation.

Here’s the next step: audit your current AppSec coverage. Look at where your tools stop. Identify what’s never tested. Then ask: Do you know how your systems behave under pressure, or do you just hope your scans are enough?

Start by scheduling an audit with one of we45’s experts for this. We’ll help you figure out what’s real and what’s just surface-level.