Penetration testing and security assessment

An automated scanner finds what it has a signature for. A real attacker chains three low-severity issues into account takeover. We test the way the second one works - manually, with tooling as an assistant rather than the method.

Testing the way an attacker would

Engagements are scoped against MITRE ATT&CK so coverage is explicit and comparable between tests. You know which techniques were attempted, which succeeded, and which were stopped by controls that worked - which is useful information in itself.

We cover web applications, APIs, internal and external networks, and cloud environments. Where it is in scope, we review source code as well, because some flaws are effectively invisible from outside.

Where scanners stop

Static analysis is good at pattern-matched flaws - a concatenated SQL string, an unescaped template variable. It is close to blind to logic. It cannot tell that your refund endpoint checks whether a user is authenticated but not whether the order belongs to them. That flaw is invisible to a scanner and obvious to a reviewer.

So for code assessment we combine static analysis tuned to your codebase, taint tracking through the layers of indirection real applications have, and manual review where judgement is required: authentication, authorisation boundaries, state machines, and anything touching money or personal data.

Proof, not speculation

Every finding ships with a working proof of concept - the exact request, the response, and reproduction steps. Nothing is reported as “potentially vulnerable”. If we could not demonstrate it, it goes in observations, clearly separated from confirmed findings.

Findings map to CWE and, where applicable, CVE, and each is written as a ticket a developer can act on: what the flaw is, why it matters here, the attack path, the fix, and how to verify it.

We also flag systemic causes - a helper used unsafely in eleven places - so you fix a class of bug rather than nine instances.

Retest included

A test that ends at the report leaves the important question open. After you remediate, we retest and issue updated validation confirming what is genuinely closed. That is what your customers and auditors are actually asking for.