The widespread use and high buzz of software apps in business and everyday life are paralleled by the rise of hacking, security breaches, and virus attacks. Behavioral imperfections and software defects can promote these serious attacks. Some of the security incidents like Apple gotofail flaw, Heartbleed, POODLE attack have taught us that web security can’t be taken lightly and even the best of us are not safe and risk-free from it. Third parties with malicious intent may exploit these vulnerabilities for their own profit. Companies may incur a serious loss of legal and security complications, customer trust, terrible slowdown of business operations and high costs of rectification, as a result. Applications Security testing is a critical QA step for businesses to safeguard their software applications. By testing the application for potential security threats and vulnerabilities, potential external attacks may be pre-empted.
Prime objectives of Security Testing
The objectives of security testing can be:
- To make certain that the adequate attention is provided to recognize the security risks
- To confirm the proper functioning of the executed security measures
- To get confirmation that a realistic mechanism to define and enforce access to the system is in the right place
- To make sure that adequate expertise exists to perform security testing
Usually, security testing has the following main attributes:
Why Security Testing?
System testing, in the modern era, is a must to determine and address web application security vulnerabilities and threats to avoid any of the following:
- Loss of client trust.
- Website downtime, time loss &expenditures to recover from damage (restoring backups, reinstalling services, etc.)
- Disturbance to the online means of revenue collection/generation.
- Cost associated with securing web apps against future attacks.
- Connected legal implications and fees to have lax security measures in place.
The main aim of security testing is to find out how vulnerable a system may be and to find out whether its data, as well as resources, are secured from potential intruders. The security testing is mainly carried out to make sure that the software under test is sufficiently robust and performs in an acceptable manner even in the event of a malicious attack.
There are so many discussions that automation testing is replacing manual testing. A lot of developers & testers in modern era want to look for the help of automation testing to make their lives simple. Test automation has received interest and much attention in recent times. But, the truth is that you can’t expect automation testing to execute all the work done by a software tester. A lot of developers and testers in the modern era prefer to seek the assistance of test automation to make their testing easy. However, test automation doesn’t have the capability to completely replace manual software testing. Therefore, we cannot expect that automation testing is stealing the job of software testers out there in the software testing world.
Reasons Why Test Automation will never replace Manual Testing:
- It only tests what is predictable- Automated tests assure people that what we anticipate to happen does, in fact, turn out. We name this the “happy path”. Automation testing concentrates on functionality that already exists. It isn’t deep but its coverage is enormous. Test Automated is effective for regression tests, precisely when resources are restricted. But only doing test automation is sure to introduce some drawbacks and disappointment in your software testing process.
- Automation is excessively expensive for small testing projects- Not just do you have automation testing software to pay for, but you also have high maintenance and management related costs, because of script writing & rewriting, including arrangement, set up and processing times. For big and long term projects, the higher expenses can be worth it. But for small and short projects it’s a massive waste of both money and time. When estimating the potential ROI for an automation purchase, you have to factor in additional man hours, too.
- Automating usability tests is just impossible- Usability testing cannot be automated and it necessitates a human. You cannot train a system (laptop, computer, etc.) to spot “good” usability vs. “bad” usability. Perhaps you might think like, “Ok, we can easily skip usability testing”. Do not make such type of mistake. By skipping this type of testing, you are introducing an incredible amount of threat. This step in the Quality Assurance process is vital to ensure confidence in the product release. There is no means around involving manual testers in usability testing.
- Automation Testing can contain faults/ bugs- Just like your app’s code can have bugs, automated tests can too. Automation tests can also catch Issues that are unaware of. If you write tests with bugs, you are literally going to have false positives, which can lead to several threats and problems for your clientele and your team. The human element of manual testing can spot these errors and ensure you are testing appropriately.
- In agile, testing scripts have to be rewritten – Working with continuous feedback in agile environs means fluid changes to the flow of the product, the User Interface, or even attributes. And nearly every time, a modification entails a rewrite of the automated scripts for the subsequent sprint. Fresh new modifications also affect the testing scripts for regression tests, so even that classic automation example necessitates a lot of updates in agile.
- Technical limits can come into play- The number of test scenarios is complex or downright impossible to automate. The universal argument is “automated testing is cheap”. But it’s not challenging to spend a ton of money and time on elaborate automation. For instance, testing a series of touch screen devices. How do you automate the understanding of a “swipe“and a “tap”. You cannot do that in a way that is equivalent to human being usage.
The existence of both automated testing and manual testing forces us to think about our option of tools, their charge, and the rewards they will provide. There are a place and time for both testing techniques. Manual testing helps us understand the complete problem and explore other tests angles with flexibility. Test automation helps save time in the long run by achieving a large number of surface level tests in a limited time. It is up to you to decide where and when every single method of testing is used. Even though automation would not replace forms of manual testing, yet neither will manual testing remove automation. Once the distinction between them is understood, the in-depth dread of automation breaks down and a competent, gainful coordinated attempt rises.
We at ImpactQA provides both Quality Assurance manual testing as well as Automation using all the most recent automation testing and manual testing tools.