# Escape AI Pentesting - Enterprise Compatibility Evaluation ## Tool Overview **Name:** Escape (by Escape Tech) **Website:** https://escape.tech **Category:** AI-Driven Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) for APIs **Date Evaluated:** 2026-02-02 --- ## Privacy & Enterprise Use ### Commercial/Enterprise Use Permission **Status:** ✅ APPROVED FOR ENTERPRISE USE **Key Findings:** - Enterprise security vendor positioning - Focus on API and web application pentesting - Integration with CI/CD pipelines - Designed for commercial use ### Model Training on User Data **Status:** ✅ LIKELY SAFE (NO CODE UPLOAD REQUIRED) **Key Findings:** - **DAST (black-box testing) - NO source code uploaded** - Tests running application from outside (like traditional pentesting) - Generates attack traffic and logs responses - No proprietary code directly exposed **Data Handling:** - Connects to running application or API - May use API definition (OpenAPI/Swagger) - Stores attack logs and discovered vulnerabilities - Results kept confidential to your account **Training Assumption:** - No public policy stating customer data used for training - Similar to other security scanners: likely trains on synthetic apps and known vulnerabilities - Your specific app patterns not used globally - May aggregate vulnerability statistics (anonymized) ### Data Retention Policies **Status:** ⚠️ NOT PUBLICLY SPECIFIED **Key Findings:** - Pentest results stored on dashboard - Logs of attacks and responses retained - Specific retention period not disclosed - Enterprise customers can likely negotiate terms - Screenshots and exploit payloads stored for review ### Data Sharing Practices **Status:** ✅ NO EXTERNAL SHARING (ASSUMED) **Third-Party Sharing:** - Results accessible only to your team - No sharing between customers - Data stays within Escape platform - Vulnerability findings confidential **Infrastructure:** - Multi-region hosting mentioned - Private deployment options available - Single-tenant deployments for enterprise ### IP & Confidentiality Concerns **Status:** ✅ GOOD (DAST APPROACH) **Intellectual Property:** - **No source code exposed** (DAST/black-box approach) - Only observable API/web behavior tested - You own all pentest results and findings - No IP claims on discovered vulnerabilities **Confidentiality:** - Attack traffic is external (HTTP requests) - Internal code/data not accessed - Similar to hiring external pentester - NDAs likely available for managed pentests **Security Considerations:** - Escape interacts with your app externally - Only sees what any external attacker could see - Does not access databases or internal systems - Lower IP exposure risk than SAST tools --- ## Pricing & Plans ### Pricing Model **Structure:** Enterprise SaaS subscription (custom pricing) **Likely Based On:** - Per-application pricing - Number of API endpoints tested - Frequency of scans (continuous vs periodic) - Usage-based or subscription model ### Features **Free Tier:** Possibly free trial or limited free scan **Enterprise Features:** - Continuous API security testing - AI agents for logic flaw detection - CI/CD integration - Coverage screenshots and detailed logs - Multi-region deployment options - Support and training ### Usage Limits - Lower tiers: Number of endpoints or scan frequency limited - Enterprise: Unlimited or high-volume scanning --- ## Enterprise Compatibility Assessment ### Strengths ✅ - **DAST approach = minimal code exposure** (black-box testing) - **No source code upload required** - AI-driven testing finds complex logic flaws - Multi-region and private deployment options - Focus on API security (modern threat landscape) - Lower IP risk than SAST tools ### Concerns ⚠️ - **Limited public documentation** on data handling - Retention policies not transparent - Training policies not explicitly stated - Relatively newer player in market - **Requires verification** before enterprise deployment ### Recommendations **✅ PROVISIONALLY APPROVED WITH VERIFICATION** **Why DAST is Lower Risk:** - Only tests externally observable behavior - No access to proprietary source code - Similar risk profile to external pentesting - Internal business logic not exposed **Action Required BEFORE Use:** 1. **Request written confirmation:** App-specific data not used for training 2. **Clarify data retention:** Get vulnerability finding retention policies 3. **Review security:** Ensure findings stay confidential 4. **Test environment:** Use on staging/test environments first 5. **NDA:** Ensure confidentiality agreement covers findings **Best For:** - API security testing (REST, GraphQL, etc.) - Organizations wanting AI-powered DAST - Teams with modern cloud-native applications - Continuous security testing in CI/CD **Not Ideal For:** - Testing production with real customer data (standard pentesting caution) - Organizations requiring complete SAST + DAST (Escape is DAST only) - Companies uncomfortable with any cloud-based security testing **For Hack Days:** - ✅ **SAFER THAN SAST TOOLS** - doesn't access source code - Point it at test/staging environment - Ensure test environment doesn't contain real customer data - Monitor what endpoints are tested - Review findings before wider deployment ### Comparison to Alternatives - **vs SAST (Snyk Code, etc.):** Escape has LOWER IP exposure (no code upload) - **vs Aikido:** Similar AI pentesting approach, similar verification needs - **vs Traditional DAST:** Escape adds AI for logic flaw detection - **vs Manual Pentesting:** Automated, continuous, more cost-effective **Unique Advantage:** AI finds complex logic flaws that traditional scanners miss, without requiring source code access --- ## Sources & References 1. **ChatGPT Evaluation Report** - Escape AI analysis 2. **Escape Website**: https://escape.tech 3. **Industry Context**: DAST security testing standards --- ## Notes - Last Updated: 2026-02-02 - Evaluator: Claude Code based on ChatGPT findings - **Key Finding:** Escape's DAST approach means lower IP exposure than SAST tools (no source code upload) - **Advantage:** Black-box testing approach naturally protects proprietary code - **Status:** Provisionally approved with verification recommended --- ## DAST vs SAST - Privacy Comparison ### DAST (Escape, traditional scanners) - ✅ **No source code uploaded** - ✅ Tests external behavior only - ✅ Lower IP exposure risk - ⚠️ May miss internal code issues ### SAST (Snyk Code, etc.) - ⚠️ Source code uploaded to cloud - ✅ Finds internal code vulnerabilities - ⚠️ Higher IP exposure risk (mitigated by no-training policies) - ✅ Catches more vulnerability types **For Maximum Privacy:** Use DAST (Escape) for external testing + On-prem SAST for internal scanning --- ## ⚠️ VERIFICATION CHECKLIST Before using Escape: - [ ] Request confirmation: App data not used for AI training - [ ] Clarify: Vulnerability finding retention period - [ ] Ensure: Test environment has no real customer data - [ ] Verify: Results stay confidential to your team - [ ] Check: NDA/confidentiality agreement available - [ ] Review: Which endpoints/APIs will be tested **Recommendation:** Escape is LOWER RISK than SAST tools for IP protection. Good choice for API security testing after basic verification.