Escape vs StackHawk

StackHawk is a well-known player in the DAST space, offering a developer-friendly approach that helps technical teams catch security issues early in the development process. It prioritizes vulnerabilities using the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology, focusing on impact and exploitability. The platform supports both web applications and API security testing, covering a wide range of API types. Developers can seamlessly integrate StackHawk into their CI/CD pipelines, enabling automated security checks within their existing workflows.

But how does StackHawk compare to Escape’s DAST, API discovery, and API security capabilities?

In this article, we’ll break down the key differences between StackHawk and Escape.

When it comes to security, choosing the right tool can make all the difference—not just in protecting sensitive data but also in maintaining the speed and efficiency of your application deployment. Let's dive in!

Head-to-head comparison: Escape vs StackHawk

Now, let's dive into how Escape compares to StackHawk. We've built this comparison based on the following sources:

• StackHawk's official website & product datasheets
• StackHawk's documentation
• StackHawk's publically accessible demos on YouTube
• Feedback from security professionals

Here you can find the head-to-head comparison of both tools:

StackHawk

Pros

✅ Focuses on empowering developers, good CI/CD integration

✅ Custom attack templates that help to customize security testing

✅ Supports a large number of developer-focused integrations

✅  The risk assessment tool is user-friendly for security engineers with developer backgrounds

✅ Offers scalable pricing plans suitable for startups and growing teams without significant infrastructure investment

Cons

❌ Reliance on ZAP & Limited coverage for business logic vulnerabilities

❌ Discovers APIs only within code repositories. No external API discovery capabilities or enriched API inventory

❌ You need to have OpenAPI specs on hand to start scanning. Spec uploads and configuration require manual effort, which could be difficult to do for larger organizations or more complex applications with large development and lean security teams

❌ StackHawk scan results payload is organized as a list of every unique finding across the scan. It provides information about vulnerability, risk, confidence, paths and may include OWASP Cheatsheet, but does not offer detailed remediation code snippets for developers

❌ StackHawk's prioritization is based on the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology. The OWASP Risk Rating Methodology primarily focuses on the technical aspects of security issues, such as their impact and exploitability. It may not take into account the specific context of your application, its users, or your business objectives. 

❌ While it could be good for small to mid-sized teams, larger enterprises might find its capabilities insufficient for extensive or highly customized needs

Escape

Pros

✅ Agentless API discovery for both externally exposed and internal APIs.  

✅ OpenAPI specification generation from automated API schema generation. It continuously monitors for and detects any changes or versions in the API schema over time.

✅ Proprietary business logic security testing algorithm for APIs, SPAs and microservices that's able to detect BOLA, IDOR, and Access Control issues

✅ Developer-ready remediation code snippets that are tailored to each development framework, fast-tracking patching and significantly improving efficiency

✅ Ability to prioritize the most critical applications by business context, data sensitivity, and exposure

✅ Integration with well-known security platforms like Wiz

Cons

❌ Advanced feature sets like custom security rules may require specialized knowledge, potentially presenting a learning curve for some users.

❌ Number of integrations with some of the operational tools can be limited 

Let's zoom in on the details: StackHawk vs Escape

API Discovery

You can't secure what you can't see, so the faster you get to see what are the APIs exposed on the internet, the more you reduce the risk of API security breaches.

Both StackHawk and Escape provide API discovery solutions, but their approaches, depth of discovery, and enrichment capabilities differ significantly.

StackHawk:

• Discovers APIs only within code repositories.
• Focuses on scanning application source code and configurations to extract API endpoints.
• Primarily used for internal development and security testing during the software development lifecycle (SDLC).
• Identifies API endpoints but does not offer extensive classification.

Escape:

• Unlike StackHawk, Escape goes beyond code repositories by performing external scanning to discover publicly exposed APIs. Escape uses a sophisticated combination of subdomain enumeration, AI-powered fingerprinting, and OSINT techniques.
• Integrates with API gateways (ex. Axway, Kong Gateway and Kong Connect and Mulesoft..), cloud providers (ex. AWS, Azure), other security solutions like Wiz, and CI/CD pipelines to enrich the inventory with additional data. To scan internal APIs behind your organization's firewall or VPN, you can connect Escape's repeater proxy.
• Provides a broader and more dynamic discovery mechanism.
• Classifies APIs based on business context, risk level, and data sensitivity.
• Leverages machine learning to categorize and prioritize discovered APIs.

With Escape, to get started all you need is to put in your main domain name, so you can build inventory without any intervention from the development team. Simplified deployment processes minimize the need for specialized knowledge and extensive internal resources.

Schema Reconstruction (Building Back API Schemas)

• StackHawk:
  • Does not generate or reconstruct OpenAPI schemas.
  • Security scanning relies on manually provided API specifications.
• Escape:
  • Automatically reconstructs API schemas (OpenAPI format) from discovered endpoints.
  • Uses AI-based techniques to infer missing documentation and detect security gaps.

Deployment

You've decided to scan your APIs & Single Page Apps for vulnerabilities. Now what? Great security platforms allow you to start right away, so you don't have to wait or include multiple team members to access your security posture.

StackHawk

One of the differences with Escape is that StackHawk itself is not a SaaS scanner that runs entirely from the cloud, but it does allow cloud-based deployments through CI/CD and containerized environments. You have several deployment options:

• Local deployment: according to StackHawk documentation, first, you are required to install HawkScan in your local environment via Homebrew. Can lead to security inconsistencies if team members leave or change devices.
• In CI/CD: StackHawk is designed to run within CI/CD workflows. It integrates with: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI/CD, Jenkins, CircleCI, Azure DevOps
• Docker & Kubernetes: Runs within containers but does not perform full Kubernetes-wide security scanning

Escape

• Agentless Deployment: Escape provides an agentless security solution, eliminating the need for installing agents on servers or applications. This approach simplifies deployment and reduces potential performance overhead. You can test all your exposed APIs, SPAs and microservices without the need for deployment. Either enter the domain name or connect the integrations you need.
• CI/CD Integration: Escape integrates seamlessly into CI/CD pipelines, enabling automated security testing during the development process.

It integrates with: GitHub Actions, npm package, Public API, GitLab CI/CD, Bitbucket Pipelines, CircleCI, Jenkins, Azure DevOps

• Private Locations: Escape's Private Locations enable secure detection, fingerprinting, and scanning of internal applications behind your organization's firewall or VPN. This is achieved through the Escape Repeater, a lightweight, open-source tool developed in Golang. The Repeater establishes a reverse tunnel between Escape and your internal network, providing a secure channel for performing scans and retrieving results.docs.escape.tech
  • Deployment Methods:
    • Docker Deployment: The Repeater can be deployed using Docker CLI, Docker Compose, or other container orchestration tools.
    • Kubernetes Deployment: For Kubernetes environments, the Repeater can be deployed as a Kubernetes deployment, allowing it to access resources within your cluster.

Security Testing: StackHawk vs. Escape

Custom security tests

Both StackHawk and Escape offer unique approaches to custom security tests. Below, you can find the detailed comparison:

Remediation guidance for developers

StackHawk scan results payload is organized as a list of every unique finding across the scan. It provides information about vulnerability, risk, confidence, paths and may include OWASP Cheatsheet, and it offers quite detailed remediation guidance for developers, but it can't be tailored to their development framework.

The difference between StackHawk and Escape is that Escape offers detailed remediation code snippets that are tailor-made for major frameworks. You can find the full list here.

More than that, Escape aims to educate developers about security best practices, so they not only fix vulnerabilities but also understand how to prevent similar issues in future development and adopt security by design.

"It's been a huge benefit for the development team."
Nicolas Gaudin, CISO, Shine

Context: the key to strengthening your business security

StackHawk's prioritization is based on the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology. The OWASP Risk Rating Methodology primarily focuses on the technical aspects of security issues, such as their impact and exploitability. It may not take into account the specific context of your application, or your business objectives. As a result, it may not align perfectly with your organization's risk tolerance or priorities.

With Escape, each remediation comes with a detailed explanation of why a particular vulnerability is a high, medium, or low risk in your specific context.

Scoring and categorization take into account factors such as

• whether they can be reproduced with or without authentication,
• if the endpoint is publicly exposed on the internet
• if the API schema is public

This detailed scoring and categorization system will help you make informed decisions about which vulnerabilities should be addressed first and allocate your resources efficiently. It prevents unnecessary panic over low-risk issues and ensures that critical high-risk vulnerabilities that are important to your business are promptly remediated.

Conclusion

We hope this comparison was useful. So, let's wrap it up!

While both Escape and StackHawk offer valuable features, Escape stands out with its agentless API discovery, automated schema generation, and proprietary business logic security testing algorithm. These capabilities enable organizations to identify and address vulnerabilities more efficiently, without the need for manual configurations or extensive maintenance. Additionally, Escape provides developer-ready remediation code snippets, tailored to various development frameworks, which streamline the patching process and enhance overall security posture.

To put it simply, if your goal is to attain comprehensive security observability and accelerate the remediation process within your development team, Escape is your top choice! With Escape, you can be assured that no Shadow or Zombie applications will slip through the cracks. You'll have the knowledge needed to secure them effectively.

So, what are you waiting for? Try out Escape today!

💡Want to learn more? Discover the following articles:

• Escape vs Burp Suite Enterprise
• Escape vs Rapid7
• Escape vs Noname Security
• Escape vs Invicti
• Reinventing API security: Why Escape is better than traditional DAST tools
• Reinventing API security: Why Escape is better than traditional traffic-based tools