How CART Differs from Traditional Red Team Engagements

The cybersecurity threat landscape is evolving rapidly, with major attacks—such as large-scale ransomware campaigns and high-profile data breaches—serving as a wake-up call for organizations worldwide.

Traditional red team cybersecurity engagements—long considered the gold standard for testing defenses—are now being complemented, and in some cases challenged, by Continuous Automated Red Teaming (CART).

While both approaches aim to uncover weaknesses before adversaries exploit them, they differ significantly in frequency, scope, tooling, and integration with modern SOC operations. This blog explores these differences, showing why red team services are evolving toward continuous, automated models in 2025.

The Basics – What Is Red Teaming vs. CART?

Traditional Red Teaming

A red team assessment is typically a point-in-time engagement, lasting from a few weeks to a couple of months. It is human-led, simulating real-world attack chains using tactics such as reconnaissance, exploitation, lateral movement, and privilege escalation.

Red teamers may employ advanced techniques such as HTTP smuggling, NoSQL injection, or Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) exploitation. While this provides deep, realistic insights, the results represent a snapshot in time—leaving potential exposure between tests.

Continuous Automated Red Teaming (CART)

CART platforms leverage automation, integrated threat intelligence feeds, and advanced penetration testing frameworks to simulate attacks continuously.

Unlike human-led events that occur periodically, CART operates 24/7, testing against both known vulnerabilities and emerging threats identified through vulnerability feeds, threat intelligence, and dark web monitoring.

It aligns closely with penetration testing as a service (PTaaS) models, delivering constant visibility into evolving risks without waiting for the next annual test.

Key Differences Between CART and Traditional Red Teaming

1. Frequency and Scope

   Traditional – Conducted once or twice a year, requiring significant resources.

   CART – Runs daily, weekly, or continuously, often integrated with vulnerability management tools and security dashboards.
   

2. Automation vs. Manual Execution

   Traditional – Relies heavily on manual exploitation and human ingenuity.

   CART – Uses automated frameworks with human oversight to deliver constant attack simulation.
   

3. Detection and Remediation Loop

   Traditional – Findings are delivered in a final report, sometimes weeks or months after discovery.

   CART – Delivers immediate alerts, enabling faster remediation and validation through re-testing.
   

4. Threat Coverage

   CART – Can integrate with External Attack Surface Management (EASM), DNS infrastructure monitoring, and automated reconnaissance to ensure all internet-facing assets are regularly tested.
   

5. Integration with Blue Teams

   Traditional – Often run separately from blue team operations.

   CART – Supports continuous purple teaming, enabling the SOC to respond, adapt, and validate fixes in near real time.
   

Real-World Example

A financial technology firm deployed Aquila I’s CART solution integrated with its ticketing system. Within 72 hours, the platform identified a race condition vulnerability in its payment gateway API—an issue that could have gone undetected for months using traditional testing methods.

CART in the Context of Cyber Threat Evolution

With emerging threats such as SS7 exploitation, cloud RPC vulnerabilities, and API abuse attacks, CART offers the adaptability and speed traditional methods often lack. By consuming dark web intelligence and scanning for leaked credentials, CART can simulate insider access scenarios and advanced attack chains in a controlled, safe environment.

When to Use CART vs. Traditional Red Teaming

• CART – Best for continuous security posture validation, compliance checks, and SOC readiness testing.

• Traditional Red Teaming – Ideal for highly targeted, complex adversary emulation where human creativity is required to chain together rare or unconventional vulnerabilities.
  

Conclusion

While traditional red teaming services remain critical for deep, high-impact assessments, modern enterprises benefit from CART for ongoing visibility and rapid remediation cycles.

By merging automated scalability with expert oversight, Aquila I’s CART ensures your defenses are continuously tested, validated, and ready for real-world attacks.

Transform your security testing from annual snapshots to continuous assurance. Book a Live CART Demo with Aquila I and see how automated red teaming can uncover, prioritize, and help you remediate threats—every single day.