Penetration tests have been the gold standard for assessing cybersecurity for decades. An ethical hacker attempts to break into your systems, writes a report and you fix the vulnerabilities found. Done — until the next pentest in a year. But in a world where threats change daily and humans are the weakest link, this approach falls short.
The evolution of security assessment moves from static snapshots to continuous behavioural analysis. From testing technical systems to understanding human behaviour. This is not the end of the pentest, but the beginning of something better.
The pentest: valuable but limited
Let us be clear: penetration tests are valuable. They reveal technical vulnerabilities that would otherwise go unnoticed. A good pentest shows how an attacker can penetrate your network, escalate privileges and reach sensitive data.
But a pentest has fundamental limitations:
- It is a snapshot — The results are valid at the moment of testing. A week later, a new vulnerability may have been introduced by a software update, configuration change or new application.
- The scope is limited — A pentest typically focuses on technical systems within a defined scope. The human element — employees clicking phishing links or reusing passwords — often falls outside the picture.
- The frequency is too low — Most organisations conduct an annual pentest. In a threat landscape that changes daily, that is like visiting the doctor once a year while chronically ill.
- The report ends up in a drawer — Too often, pentest reports are produced, presented and then forgotten. Without follow-up and verification, the value is limited.
Technical vs. human vulnerabilities
The Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report shows the same picture year after year: more than 80% of successful cyber attacks have a human component. An employee who clicks a link, shares credentials, plugs in a USB drive or fails to recognise a suspicious request.
Traditional pentests focus primarily on the technical side: firewalls, network configurations, application vulnerabilities. The human factor is at most tested via a one-off phishing simulation that is more of a checkbox exercise than a serious assessment.
The reality is that technical security and human behaviour are inextricably linked. The best firewall in the world does not help if an employee sticks their password on a post-it note or voluntarily grants access to an attacker via social engineering.
Continuous assessment: from photo to film
The solution is not more pentests but a fundamentally different paradigm. Continuous security assessment replaces the annual snapshot with an ongoing process of measuring, analysing and adjusting.
In practice, this means:
- Automated vulnerability scans that run daily or weekly and immediately alert to new risks
- Continuous phishing simulations that take place not once a year but continuously, with increasing complexity
- Behavioural measurement that shows how employees handle security guidelines in their daily work
- Real-time dashboards that display the current risk level of the organisation, not the status from six months ago
The difference is like that between a photo and a film. A photo shows one moment; a film reveals patterns, trends and changes. For effective cybersecurity, you need the film.
The Nexus-7 Q-Method: measuring behaviour, understanding risks
At Nexus-7, we developed the Q-Method — a methodology that combines technical assessment with in-depth behavioural analysis. The Q-Method goes beyond the question "can we break in?" and asks the more fundamental question: "how do people behave in relation to cybersecurity?"
The Q-Method measures not only whether employees click a phishing link, but also:
- How employees handle password policies and authentication
- Whether and how security incidents are reported
- How quickly and adequately people respond to suspicious situations
- Which departments, roles or locations have the highest risk profile
- How security awareness develops over time
The results are translated into a concrete risk profile per department and per behaviour category. Not an abstract score but actionable insights: "department X scores high on phishing awareness but low on password hygiene; department Y does not report incidents in a timely manner."
From compliance checkbox to real resilience
Many organisations treat security assessments as a compliance obligation: something to be ticked off to meet regulations. The annual pentest, the ISO 27001 certificate, the NIS2 compliance check — they become ritualistic exercises that contribute little to actual resilience.
True resilience emerges when security assessment is no longer an annual event but a continuous process embedded in daily operations. When employees are not afraid of the annual phishing test but are continuously trained and supported. When management does not receive a report once a year but has real-time insight into the risk profile.
The evolution from pentest to behavioural analysis is not a replacement but an enrichment. Technical assessments remain valuable, but they become more effective when combined with continuous behavioural measurement and a culture of security awareness.
Nexus-7 helps organisations make this transition — from periodic snapshots to continuous insights, from technical checklists to behaviour-driven security, from compliance on paper to resilience in practice.
