FR EN

Has anyone actually tried to break it?

A dependency scanner tells you a library is outdated. It does not tell you whether your authentication can be bypassed, whether one user can read another user's data by changing an ID in the URL, or whether your API trusts input it should not. Those are found by someone trying to break the application, not by a report generated overnight.

What the engagement covers

Testing against the OWASP Top 10 and, for a more rigorous scope, the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) — the same reference points named by the larger firms in this space, because they are the ones worth naming:

  • Automated scanning (DAST). OWASP ZAP crawls and probes the running application for the vulnerability classes automation catches reliably: injection points, missing security headers, exposed debug endpoints, outdated components.
  • Manual exploitation. A scanner cannot decide that changing ?user_id=41 to 42 should not work. That requires a person driving an interception proxy — Burp Suite — replaying and modifying real requests: broken access control, logic flaws, authentication and session weaknesses.
  • API-level testing. Most of the actual attack surface on a modern product is the API, not the pages. Authentication, authorisation on every endpoint, rate limiting, and input validation are tested directly against it.
  • Regression, wired into CI/CD. Once a class of issue is found and fixed, a check for it is added to the pipeline — so the same vulnerability re-entering the codebase six months later is caught by a build, not by an incident.

What you get

A written report, findings sorted by severity and exploitability rather than by scanner output order. Each finding is reproducible: the exact request, the exact modification, and what it exposed — evidence a developer can act on without a follow-up call to understand it.

Remediation guidance is specific to the finding and the stack, not a generic OWASP cheat-sheet link. A re-test of fixed issues is included before the engagement closes.

How it runs

The scoping session is free and lasts an hour: what is in scope, what is explicitly out of scope, and written authorisation to test — we do not start without it, and neither should anyone you hire.

The engagement itself runs the automated pass first, then the manual exploitation pass against the agreed scope. A few days for a focused API or application, longer for a full product surface.

Request the scoping session

What this is not

This is application-level security testing, not a substitute for a full red-team engagement, a compliance audit (SOC 2, ISO 27001), or infrastructure and network penetration testing — those are different disciplines with different tooling, and claiming to cover all of them under one offer is how clients end up with a report that looks thorough and is not. If your need is broader than the application layer, say so during scoping: we tell you plainly if it needs a different specialist, and we can scope a joint engagement rather than stretch to cover ground we should not.

We do not test anything without the written authorisation described above. No exceptions, regardless of how confident you are that you own the target.

Before and after

If security is one open question among several — no test strategy, unclear ownership, flaky releases — the broader quality audit is the better starting point. If the finding is "we need this checked continuously, not once," that becomes a test strategy question: where security testing sits in the pipeline, and who owns it.