Table 8.

Comparison of penetration testing tools based on NIST 800-155 methodology.

Tool	Advantages	Disadvantages	NIST 800-155 Coverage
Metasploit [47]	Comprehensive exploitation capabilities; extensive module library for payloads and post-exploitation.	Lacks automation; requires skilled operators; limited discovery and reporting.	Partial: Focused on exploitation and reporting.
Nessus [48]	Robust vulnerability scanning; extensive plugin support.	Limited exploitation features; requires external integration for advanced reporting.	Partial: Emphasizes discovery and analysis.
OWASP ZAP [49]	Highly effective for web application scanning; CI/CD integration.	Limited for multi-layered systems; manual intervention needed for reporting.	Partial: Focused on discovery and analysis.
Burp Suite [50]	Customizable for web penetration testing; rich plugin ecosystem.	Requires significant manual effort; limited to web applications.	Partial: Focused on discovery and analysis.
PentestGPT [51]	AI-based approach; rapid vulnerability identification; generates remediation suggestions.	Limited in complex system architectures; struggles with adaptive learning.	Partial: Covers preparation and discovery.
CyberProbe AI [52]	Advanced AI-driven scanning; effective for threat prioritization; integrates seamlessly with DevSecOps pipelines.	Expensive licensing; relies on pre-trained models; limited exploit generation.	Partial: Focuses on preparation, discovery, and reporting.
BERT QA RL + RS (This proposal)	Fully automated end-to-end framework; reinforcement learning ensures adaptability; QA provides contextual understanding; excels in multi-layered system testing.	Higher resource demands; training requires significant time.	Complete: Covers all NIST phases, including preparation, discovery, analysis, and exploitation.