أدوات الذكاء الاصطناعي في عام 2026: دليل تقني متعمق لمهندسي الأمن وفرق عمل التطبيقات القائمة على الذكاء الاصطناعي

In modern web application security, Dynamic Application Security Testing (داست) plays a foundational role. Unlike static approaches that analyze source code at rest, DAST tools interact with an application in its running state—simulating real-world attacks from the outside‐in to uncover runtime vulnerabilities that matter most in production and CI/CD environments. Invicti+1

DAST is essential for black-box security testing: it probes running web apps and APIs without access to source code, making it invaluable to penetration testers, AppSec teams, and DevSecOps workflows looking to bridge security and productivity. Jit

Below is a comprehensive, analyst-level dive into dast tools, how they stack up, where they excel or fall short, practical usage examples (including code and CVE context), and how they fit into modern product platforms like Penligent where appropriate.

Understanding DAST: Why It Still Matters

Web applications and APIs remain top targets for attackers, as underscored by the OWASP Top 10 Web Application Security Risks—a widely-recognized reference for the most pervasive and dangerous bugs that plague online systems. OWASP

DAST tools excel at detecting vulnerabilities like:

• Injection flaws (e.g., SQL Injection)
• البرمجة النصية عبر المواقع (XSS)
• Authentication and session management flaws
• Misconfigurations and sensitive data exposure

These represent some of the core attack vectors in OWASP’s list, and tools that can find them dynamically are indispensable to secure pipelines and runtime environments. OWASP

How DAST Works (Black-Box Testing)

DAST tools operate as an external user or attacker would:

1. Crawl the application using spidering or API specification (e.g., OpenAPI).
2. Generate and send malicious or malformed inputs to endpoints.
3. Observe responses and application behavior for anomalies, error states, or confirmed vulnerabilities.
4. Produce actionable findings with severity, context, and suggested remediation. explinks

Because this testing occurs on a live version of the application, DAST is uniquely positioned to detect vulnerabilities that only manifest at runtime—logic flaws, authentication issues, and deeper chain exploits.

Top dast tools in 2025/2026 (Analyst-Ranked)

Here’s a data-backed comparison of the most widely recognized DAST tools, suitable for AppSec and DevSecOps teams.

This concise list reflects the current marketplace for dast tools with capabilities ranging from open source community scanners to enterprise-scale automation suites. Invicti+1

High-Impact Vulnerabilities DAST Can Detect (with CVE Examples)

In live security testing, DAST is often tasked with finding classes of bugs that adversaries exploit in the wild. Below are concrete examples of such vulnerabilities:

CVE-2024-3495 — SQL Injection in WordPress Plugin

A SQL injection in the Country State City Dropdown CF7 plugin allowed unauthenticated attackers to manipulate database queries—classic test target for DAST scanners. 51CTO

CVE-2024-37843 — SQL Injection via GraphQL API

Craft CMS versions <= v3.7.31 allowed SQL injection via a GraphQL endpoint, a class of flaw that DAST tools that understand GraphQL scanning can detect dynamically. 51CTO

CVE-2024-5922 — Palo Alto Expedition Auth Bypass

This vulnerability allowed attackers to bypass authentication mechanisms, something DAST workflows would flag as part of unauthorized access testing. 51CTO

Each of these vulnerabilities falls into categories widely covered by OWASP’s risk taxonomy (e.g., injection and broken authentication), making them ripe for dynamic scanning coverage. OWASP

Practical Usage: Code Examples & Automating DAST Scans

Below are examples of how DAST can be automated in pipelines and remediation workflows.

Example: Running OWASP ZAP via CLI

باش

Simple DAST scan with ZAP against a live URLdocker run -t owasp/zap2docker-stable zap-baseline.py \\ -t <https://example.com> \\ -r zap_report.html

This baseline script performs common dynamic tests, logs reports, and outputs an HTML report for human triage.

Example: API Fuzzing with StackHawk (Node.js)

يمل

`stackhawk.yml – integration example application: name: my-api base-url: “https://api.example.com” scans:

• type: dast rules: default`

Integrating this config in CI (e.g., GitHub Actions or GitLab CI) enables automated API security scanning as part of build validations.

Attack & Defense Example 3: Authentication Bypass via Logic Flaw (Runtime Only)

Attack Scenario

Authentication logic flaws are notoriously difficult to detect with static analysis alone. Many of them only emerge at runtime when specific request sequences or parameter combinations are used. DAST tools excel here by observing real authentication behavior instead of inferred code paths.

The following example demonstrates an authentication bypass caused by improper trust in client-supplied parameters.

http

POST /api/login HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Content-Type: application/json { "username": "attacker", "password": "invalid", "isAdmin": true }

If the backend incorrectly trusts the isAdmin flag without enforcing server-side authorization checks, the response may grant elevated privileges despite failed authentication.

This class of issue aligns with Broken Authentication and Access Control, and similar logic flaws have appeared in real-world incidents such as CVE-2024-5922, where authentication checks could be bypassed under specific conditions.

DAST tools can detect this by:

• Replaying authentication flows with mutated parameters
• Observing privilege changes in responses
• Validating session state transitions across requests

استراتيجية الدفاع

The correct mitigation is strict server-side enforcement of authentication and authorization logic, completely ignoring any client-controlled privilege indicators.

بايثون

def login(request):

user = authenticate(request.json["username"], request.json["password"])

if not user:

return {"error": "Unauthorized"}, 401

# Privilege must be derived from server-side identity, never from input

is_admin = user.role == "admin"

return generate_session(user_id=user.id, is_admin=is_admin)

From a defensive AppSec perspective, this example illustrates why runtime testing remains essential: logic flaws cannot be reliably detected without observing real execution paths, which is exactly where DAST tools provide coverage.

Attack & Defense Example 4: API Mass Assignment Vulnerability

Attack Scenario

Mass assignment vulnerabilities occur when APIs automatically bind user-supplied input to backend objects without explicit allow-listing. This pattern is especially common in modern REST and GraphQL APIs.

Example malicious request:

http

PUT /api/users/123 HTTP/1.1 Host: api.example.com Content-Type: application/json { "email": "[email protected]", "role": "admin", "accountStatus": "active" }

If the backend blindly maps all fields to the user object, an attacker may escalate privileges or reactivate disabled accounts.

This vulnerability class maps closely to OWASP API Security Top 10 – Mass Assignment, and has appeared in multiple high-impact incidents affecting production APIs.

DAST tools identify this issue by:

• Injecting unexpected object fields
• Comparing authorized vs unauthorized state changes
• Detecting privilege escalation through response behavior

Because the exploit requires observing state changes at runtime, static tools often miss it entirely.

استراتيجية الدفاع

The correct defense is explicit field allow-listing and strict schema validation.

جافا سكريبت

// Secure API update handler const allowedFields = ["email", "displayName"]; function updateUser(input, user) {const sanitized = {}; for (const field of allowedFields) {if (input[field] !== undefined) { sanitized[field] = input[field]; } } return user.update(sanitized); }

In mature DevSecOps pipelines, pairing schema validation with automated DAST scanning ensures that privilege-related regressions are detected early—before they reach production.

Limitations and How to Mitigate Them

While powerful, DAST has inherent limitations:

• Lacks internal code visibility — DAST cannot locate the exact line of code at fault.
• Limited context for logic bugs unless enhanced with scripting or AI features.
• Crawling limitations with modern SPAs and AJAX workflows.

To address these gaps, combine DAST with SAST, IAST, and software composition analysis (SCA) for comprehensive AST coverage. Penligent (https://penligent.ai/) is an example of a platform that aims to integrate multiple testing paradigms (dynamic, static, and AI-assisted exploration) to present unified vulnerability context and prioritization. This holistic view supports both automated scans and human-driven analysis. (Note: verify exact integration details with Penligent documentation.)

Integrating dast tools with Modern DevSecOps Workflows

Security is most effective when embedded in the development lifecycle:

• Use DAST early in staging environments to catch runtime flaws without production risk.
• Automate scans with CI/CD triggers on pull requests or nightly runs.
• Leverage API specification inputs (OpenAPI/Swagger) to expand coverage.
• Feed outputs to issue trackers automatically for rapid remediation loops.

Conclusion: Evolving dast tools for Today’s Security Landscape

Dynamic Application Security Testing remains a cornerstone in any robust security posture. With modern attack surfaces — from SPAs to GraphQL APIs — combining dast tools with context-aware scanning and AI-driven prioritization is essential. Top ranked tools are evolving with features that reduce false positives, integrate with DevOps pipelines, and provide developer-friendly insights. Jit

As app architectures grow more complex, security engineers should view DAST not as a standalone checkbox, but as part of a multi-layer defense strategy — blended with static analysis, composition insights, and runtime monitoring to build resilient applications.