<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Autonomous-Pentesting on Napat&#39;s Inverse Blog</title>
    <link>/tags/autonomous-pentesting/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Autonomous-Pentesting on Napat&#39;s Inverse Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2026 07:45:00 +0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="/tags/autonomous-pentesting/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Who Watches the Robot Hacker?</title>
      <link>/2026-04-19-who-watches-the-robot-hacker/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2026 07:45:00 +0700</pubDate>
      <guid>/2026-04-19-who-watches-the-robot-hacker/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h1 id=&#34;who-watches-the-robot-hacker&#34;&gt;Who Watches the Robot Hacker?&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Last week OWASP published something unusual. Not a vulnerability list. Not a top-ten. A governance standard for autonomous penetration testing platforms. The name is APTS, and it asks a question that most people in security haven&amp;rsquo;t thought about yet: &lt;em&gt;what happens when you give an AI the ability to hack things on its own?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The answer, it turns out, is complicated — and the standard itself has problems nobody is talking about.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
