AI Pentesting's False Alarms Force Human Verification

AI pentesting tools are facing significant skepticism due to issues like false positives and fabricated findings. Roughly 30% of practitioners report these as their biggest frustration. What's interesting is that these "hallucinated" exploits can sound entirely plausible, complete with attack paths and remediation steps, even if they are incorrect. This forces security teams to verify every finding, adding a new layer of work. Industry research shows only 9% of security professionals support fully automated pentesting, preferring a hybrid model with human validation. This is because a single fake finding can poison trust, making practitioners question every subsequent result. The bottom line is that while AI can identify potential bugs, human knowledge remains crucial for proving their existence and exploitability.