We test your web application the way a capable adversary would: authenticated, methodical, and aligned to the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide. Every finding ships with reproduction steps, captured evidence, and a fix your engineers can act on the same day they read it.
A web application concentrates authentication, authorization, and business rules into a single attack surface. We work through all of it by hand. Automated scanners can enumerate inputs, but they cannot model what your application is supposed to do, and that gap is where the serious flaws live.
Credential handling, brute force and lockout behavior, multi-factor enrollment and bypass paths, password reset token generation and expiry, and OAuth and OIDC flows including redirect validation. On the session side we examine token entropy, cookie scoping and flags, fixation, concurrent session handling, and whether logout actually invalidates anything.
Horizontal escalation between users of equal privilege, vertical escalation toward administrative functions, and tenant isolation in multi-tenant platforms. We map every role in scope, then request each object and function as the wrong user, because insecure direct object references and missing function-level checks rarely announce themselves in a crawl.
SQL injection including blind and time-based variants, OS command injection, and server-side template injection in engines such as Jinja2, Freemarker, and Twig. We trace user input through to the interpreters and template contexts that consume it rather than spraying payloads at parameters, which is how the injectable field a scanner marked as safe gets found.
Server-side request forgery against internal services and cloud metadata endpoints, unsafe deserialization of user-controlled objects, and upload handling examined from content validation through storage location to how the file is later served or processed. Each is a route from a web form to server-side compromise, and each is tested end to end.
Race conditions in balance and inventory operations, workflow steps that can be skipped or replayed, price and quantity manipulation, and legitimate features abused in sequences your product team never intended. Every request involved is well-formed, so finding these takes a tester who has read your workflows, and this category consistently produces the highest-impact findings we report.
Stored, reflected, and DOM-based cross-site scripting, CSRF on state-changing endpoints, CORS misconfigurations that hand authenticated responses to hostile origins, and unsafe postMessage handling. We also read your JavaScript bundles and source maps for API keys, internal endpoints, and credentials that shipped to the browser without anyone noticing.
Four phases, each with a defined output. Before the first request leaves our infrastructure you know who is testing, what they will do, and when the report will land.
We agree on target applications, environments, roles, and exclusions, then collect what testing needs: URLs, test accounts at each privilege level, MFA arrangements, and our source IP range for your allowlists. The output is a signed scope and rules of engagement with named escalation contacts on both sides.
Manual, WSTG-aligned testing across every role in scope, authenticated and unauthenticated. You have a named tester as your point of contact, status updates as work proceeds, and immediate notification of any critical finding rather than a surprise in the final report.
The report arrives within five business days of testing completion. Each finding carries reproduction steps, request and response evidence, a CVSS v3.1 severity rating, and specific remediation guidance. A live debrief with the testers follows, open to your engineers and leadership alike.
Once your fixes ship, we retest every reported finding once at no additional cost and issue an updated report showing verified remediation. That closing document is written to be handed to customers, partners, or auditors without edits.
Recognized standards keep coverage systematic. Senior testers make it go further than any checklist.
The OWASP Web Security Testing Guide gives every engagement the same floor: a documented set of test cases spanning authentication, authorization, session management, input handling, and error behavior, so coverage does not depend on which tester you were assigned. Above that floor, testers pursue whatever your specific application makes possible, because the guide describes classes of weakness while your codebase supplies the instances.
When you need a measurable bar rather than a list of findings, we test against OWASP ASVS at a target level you choose. Level 1 suits most public-facing applications, Level 2 is the working standard for applications that handle sensitive data, and Level 3 fits high-assurance systems in finance, healthcare, and defense. The report then states, requirement by requirement, where your application stands against the level you selected.
The report is the product. Ours is written for two audiences at once: leadership deciding what to prioritize, and engineers deciding what to change. Neither has to translate for the other, and nothing in it depends on taking our word over the evidence.
Reports and evidence move only through an encrypted channel agreed at scoping, never by plain email, and remain available to you after the engagement closes.
In most cases, yes. Gray box testing with accounts at each privilege level is the standard model for web applications, because access control flaws only surface when we can act as several different users and compare what each can reach. We typically ask for two accounts per role and, for multi-tenant platforms, accounts in at least two tenants. Unauthenticated testing is still part of every engagement, so the external attacker's view is never skipped.
We use non-destructive techniques by default: injection is confirmed through inference rather than modification, and destructive actions are simulated, not executed. Any test that must change state, such as completing a checkout or exercising a delete function, is coordinated with you in advance, performed against marked test records, and logged on our side so every change can be traced and reversed.
Either, and the right answer depends on your risk tolerance. A staging environment that mirrors production allows the most aggressive testing, and we then validate selected findings against production to confirm they hold. Testing production directly is routine when no faithful staging copy exists, conducted under agreed windows and rate limits. Where staging and production differ, the report says so, because a finding proven only in staging is a different claim.
Most web application engagements run five to fifteen testing days, driven by the number of roles, screens, workflows, and tenancy boundaries rather than raw page count. A focused assessment of a single application with two or three roles usually fits in one to two weeks. You receive a firm estimate at scoping, and the report follows within five business days of testing completion.
Yes. Continuous programs run recurring test cycles aligned to your release cadence, quarterly or faster, focused on what changed since the last cycle plus a rotating slice of the full surface. Findings feed directly into your issue tracker, retests happen as fixes ship instead of months later, and each cycle starts from accumulated knowledge of your application rather than from zero.
Tell us what the application does, the roles involved, and when you need results. You will have a proposed scope, timeline, and engagement model within a few business days.