Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesiTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Choose a penetration test to find out whether scoped weaknesses can be exploited, a red-team exercise to test how your organization handles a realistic adversary objective, or a purple-team format to improve detection and response through collaboration between offensive and defensive practitioners. These approaches can overlap, but they answer different questions—and none certifies an organization as secure.
What each security assessment is designed to test
| Approach | Primary question | Typical emphasis | Defender involvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Penetration test | Can a tester exploit a weakness in the agreed scope? | Technical vulnerabilities, exploitability, and the potential impact on scoped systems | Varies by engagement; the assessment may be coordinated or conducted with limited advance knowledge, subject to the agreed rules |
| Red-team exercise | Can an authorized simulated adversary achieve an organizational or mission-level objective, and how does the organization respond? | Adversary objectives, operational context, and the performance of security capabilities | May be limited or controlled to preserve realism, with awareness and safety arrangements defined in advance |
| Purple-team format | What can offensive and defensive teams learn together from specific adversary behaviors? | Threat-informed testing, observation, detection validation, and defensive improvement | Collaborative: defenders and offensive practitioners share observations and use them to improve understanding and response |
NIST SP 800-115 describes technical testing as a planned process: set objectives and scope, conduct tests, analyze results, and develop mitigations. NIST’s glossary describes a red-team exercise as a simulated adversarial attempt, reflecting real-world conditions, to compromise organizational missions or business processes and assess security capability. MITRE ATT&CK resources describe purple teaming as a collaborative approach to threat-informed testing; it does not have to be a separate standing department.
Which format should you choose?
Start with the decision you need to make, then select the format that can produce evidence relevant to it. The comparison below is a planning aid, not a mandated NIST checklist.
| If you need to know… | Consider… | Plan for… |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a specific weakness or set of weaknesses is exploitable | A scoped penetration test | Named assets and accounts, permitted test methods, evidence for findings, impact analysis, fixes, and any retest |
| Whether defenses can detect and respond to an adversary pursuing a business or mission objective | A red-team exercise | A defined objective, appropriate operational realism, rules of engagement, escalation contacts, stop conditions, and an assessment of defender performance |
| Whether defenders can recognize selected adversary behaviors and improve their detections alongside offensive practitioners | A purple-team format | Selected behaviors, shared observations, agreed test procedures, and a way to turn findings into detection or response improvements |
Scope, permitted methods, threat model, operational realism, defender awareness, interruption options, evidence, remediation support, and retest arrangements can all affect the choice. Resolve these with the people responsible for business risk and system operations; the labels alone do not specify how an engagement will run.
#1 Best Overall
How to use MITRE ATT&CK without mistaking it for coverage
MITRE ATT&CK provides a common vocabulary for describing adversary tactics and techniques. It can help a team select behaviors for an emulation, relate threat intelligence to a test plan, and communicate what the exercise covered. MITRE says ATT&CK provides a common language and framework that red teams can use to emulate specific threats and plan operations.
Use that vocabulary to make the plan more specific, not to claim that a technique list represents complete security coverage. MITRE’s public adversary-emulation plans are prototypes based on public threat reporting. Public reports may not fully explain how attackers chain techniques or operate hands-on-keyboard, so tailor any plan to local threat intelligence, the organization’s environment, and the test objective. A public plan is a starting point, not a complete recipe or universal checklist.
What to agree before testing begins
Before any test starts, put the authorization and boundaries in writing. NIST SP 800-115 frames technical testing as planned and constrained; red-team guidance likewise emphasizes rules of engagement. Treat those rules as engagement-planning guidance, not as a claim about a universal legal mandate.
- State the business objective. Identify the decision the assessment should inform, such as prioritizing a technical weakness or evaluating response to a defined adversary objective.
- Define the scope. List in-scope systems, applications, networks, accounts, and relevant business processes. Name exclusions explicitly so that testers and operators share the same boundary.
- Specify permitted methods and limits. Record allowed techniques, prohibited actions, test windows, and any restrictions needed to protect availability, data, or third parties.
- Set stop conditions and escalation paths. Identify conditions that require a pause or stop, who can call it, and the contacts for urgent technical or business issues.
- Agree on coordination and defender awareness. Decide who knows about the exercise, how operational teams will be protected from confusion, and how realism will be balanced with safety.
- Set data-handling rules. Decide how evidence will be collected, protected, retained, shared, and disposed of, including how sensitive data encountered during testing will be handled.
- Define deliverables and validation. Agree what the final report must cover, who receives it, how remediation will be tracked, and whether a retest or other validation is included.
What a useful report should contain
For a penetration test, give decision-makers enough evidence to understand the finding, assess its significance, and act on it. NIST SP 800-115 covers analyzing findings and developing mitigation strategies; it does not establish a single mandatory report template.
Rank #3
- Objective and scope: the systems and accounts assessed, exclusions, test period, and relevant constraints.
- Methods: the testing approach and important limits on what was attempted.
- Evidence and affected assets: enough detail to support each finding and identify what is affected, while following the agreed data-handling rules.
- Impact and likelihood reasoning: explain why a finding matters in the organization’s context rather than relying on a label alone.
- Remediation actions: concrete changes that address the cause of the issue, with priorities grounded in business risk.
- Validation plan: how the organization can confirm that the fix works, including any agreed retest.
For red- or purple-team work, also record which objectives and behaviors were attempted, what defenders observed or missed, how escalation and response worked, and which improvements follow from the results. A record of what was and was not attempted helps stakeholders interpret the exercise without implying it covered every possible attack.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How the NIST guidance applies
NIST SP 800-115, Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment, was published on September 30, 2008. It remains foundational guidance for planning and conducting technical information-security tests, analyzing findings, and developing mitigation strategies. NIST presents it as an overview of techniques, benefits, limits, and recommendations—not as a comprehensive testing program or a 2026 revision.
NIST SP 800-172A Rev. 3 was published on May 13, 2026. It provides assessment procedures for enhanced security requirements for controlled unclassified information (CUI). NIST describes assessments in this context as potentially self-assessments, independent third-party assessments, or government-sponsored assessments; rigor can vary according to agency-defined depth and coverage. This publication is relevant when the work concerns those CUI requirements, not a universal commercial penetration-testing standard.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →For threat-informed emulation and collaborative testing, MITRE ATT&CK resources provide a complementary vocabulary and learning materials, including adversary-emulation plans and purple-team resources. They help teams describe and exercise selected behaviors; they do not replace an organization’s own objectives, constraints, or threat context.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
