The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Back to feedPost
I recently created a demonstration of an AI-powered penetration testing workflow in an authorized lab environment.
The workflow covers:
✅ AI-based reconnaissance
✅ Automated vulnerability discovery
✅ Safe vulnerability validation
✅ Attack-path analysis
✅ Evidence collection and CVSS assessment
✅ Automated security report generation
AI can help security professionals reduce repetitive work, organize evidence, and accelerate reporting. However, human validation remains essential for confirming findings, understanding business impact, and avoiding false positives.
This project uses a fictional application and simulated security findings. No real systems or data were involved.
💬 Where do you think AI can provide the most value in penetration testing: discovery, validation, or reporting?
#AISecurity #Cybersecurity #PenetrationTesting #ApplicationSecurity #EthicalHacking #SecurityAutomation #AppSec #DevSecOps #AI
The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Related posts
Is AI finally good enough to shoot a product demo on its own, or human touch is still needed?
I generated a 20s product demo with Seedance 2.5 in a single take providing it with one product image reference and an example video transcript (posted in the comments). Do you disclose to a client how much AI is involved, or just let the result speak for itself?
Is AI finally good enough to shoot a product demo on its own, or human touch is still needed?
I generated a 20s product demo with Seedance 2.5 in a single take providing it with one product image reference and an example video transcript (posted in the comments).
Do you disclose...
The most dangerous system failure may still be green.
A form submits successfully.
A webhook returns 200 OK.
The workflow finishes without an error.
But no useful record reaches the destination.
That is the next case I’m adding to a controlled intake-system demonstration for MLOpsLab.
Instead of trusting execution status alone, the test will compare:
what the process expected;
what it accepted;
what it processed;
what was actually committed;
why an item produced no output.
The intended distinction is:
Completed: the expected result exists.
Legitimately empty: zero output was correct.
Incomplete: work was accepted, but the expected result is missing.
This matters beyond workflow automation.
A customer enquiry can receive a confirmation without reaching the team.
An AI assistant can say details were saved when storage failed.
A report can load successfully while omitting one source.
The useful question is not simply:
“Did the system run?”
It is:
“Can we verify that the intended business outcome happened?”
This remains a controlled demonstration using synthetic data, not a production or client-result claim.
#MLOpsLab #SystemsEngineering #WorkflowReliability
AI Proposal Generator: From Brief to Branded PDF
