middleBrick vs OWASP ZAP
What middleBrick covers
- Black-box scanning with no agents or code access
- Under-one-minute scan turnaround time
- Detection aligned to OWASP API Top 10 (2023)
- Supports authenticated scans with strict header allowlist
- CI/CD integration via GitHub Action and MCP server
- Continuous monitoring with diff detection and alerts
Scope and methodology differences
middleBrick is a black-box API security scanner that submits requests to a live endpoint and analyzes responses. It requires no agents, SDKs, or code access and supports any language or framework. Scans complete in under a minute using read-only methods (GET and HEAD) plus text-only POST for LLM probes.
OWASP ZAP is primarily an intercepting proxy that supports active scanning with injected payloads. It can perform active vulnerability checks, such as SQL injection and command injection, which are outside the scope of middleBrick. ZAP also supports authenticated sessions and extensive plugin extensions, whereas middleBrick focuses on read-only detection aligned to the OWASP API Top 10.
Authentication and authorized scanning
middleBrick supports Bearer, API key, Basic auth, and Cookie authentication for authenticated scans. Domain verification is required, allowing only the domain owner to submit credentials. The scanner forwards a strict allowlist of headers and does not modify server state.
OWASP ZAP provides broader authentication mechanisms, including OAuth flows, form-based login, and scriptable authentication sequences. ZAP allows detailed session management and can actively test authentication and session management issues. middleBrick maps authentication-related findings to the OWASP API Top 10 but does not test intrusive authentication bypass techniques.
Integration footprint and setup
middleBrick offers a low-integration footprint. The CLI requires a single package install, the web dashboard needs no on-premise deployment, and the GitHub Action adds a gate to CI/CD pipelines. The MCP server enables scanning from AI-assisted coding tools without local infrastructure.
OWASP ZAP typically requires more setup, including proxy configuration, certificate installation, and session management scripts. ZAP can be integrated into CI/CD but often involves more operational overhead. middleBrick aims for rapid deployment, while ZAP provides deeper configuration options for complex testing scenarios.
Detection coverage and compliance mapping
middleBrick detects issues across 12 categories aligned to the OWASP API Top 10 (2023), including authentication bypass, BOLA, BFLA, property authorization, input validation, rate limiting, data exposure, encryption, SSRF, inventory management, unsafe consumption, and LLM/AI security. Findings map directly to PCI-DSS 4.0, SOC 2 Type II, and OWASP API Top 10 controls.
OWASP ZAP provides a wide range of active and passive scanners and can identify additional vulnerability classes outside the API-specific scope. Both tools support evidence collection for security reviews. middleBrick focuses on API-specific signals and does not perform intrusive exploitation; ZAP includes broader web application tests.
Pricing model and ongoing monitoring
middleBrick uses a tiered subscription model. The Free tier allows 3 scans per month with CLI access. Starter at 99 USD per month supports 15 APIs, dashboard, email alerts, and the MCP server. Pro at 499 USD per month adds continuous monitoring, GitHub Action gates, and compliance reports. Enterprise offers unlimited APIs and custom controls.
OWASP ZAP is open source and free, though organizations may invest in hosting, training, and integration effort. middleBrick includes managed scanning, scheduled rescans, diff detection, and alerting as part of the service, whereas ZAP relies on user-operated automation and tooling to achieve similar workflows.
Limitations and responsible use
middleBrick is a scanning tool and does not fix, patch, or remediate findings. It does not perform active SQL injection or command injection testing, does not detect blind SSRF relying on out-of-band channels, and does not replace a human pentester for high-stakes audits. Remediation guidance is provided, but implementation requires security and development expertise.
OWASP ZAP similarly requires expertise to interpret results and validate findings. Both tools support audit evidence collection and help prepare for security reviews, but neither certifies compliance with any regulatory framework. Use scan results as one input within a broader risk management process.