Senior-led penetration testing across applications, infrastructure, and AI systems. You get findings a CISO can defend in front of the board and engineers can fix from the report alone, with evidence for every claim we make.
Each discipline is practiced by testers who specialize in it. We scope engagements around one discipline or combine several when your attack surface demands it.
Assessment aligned to the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide. We work through authentication and session handling, access control across roles and tenants, injection classes from SQL to template engines, and the business logic flaws that automated scanners cannot model because they require understanding what the application is for.
iOS and Android testing against OWASP MASVS requirements using MASTG techniques. Coverage includes local data storage, transport security, platform API misuse, inter-process communication, and resistance to reverse engineering and runtime instrumentation on jailbroken or rooted devices.
REST, GraphQL, and gRPC services tested at the schema level. We probe authorization models object by object, hunting broken object-level authorization, mass assignment, missing rate limiting, and abuse of introspection, batching, and aliasing features that turn a well-documented API into an extraction tool.
External and internal infrastructure testing. Externally we map and attack your perimeter the way an internet-based adversary would. Internally we assess segmentation, Active Directory attack paths, credential handling, and how far lateral movement can carry an intruder from a single compromised host.
Assessment of language models, agents, and the applications wrapped around them. We test prompt injection, jailbreak resistance, data exfiltration through model outputs, and abuse of tool integrations, aligned to the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications. There is a dedicated section on this further down the page.
Objective-driven adversary emulation mapped to MITRE ATT&CK. The question is not whether a vulnerability exists but whether your people and controls detect and stop a determined intrusion in progress. A full section below describes how these operations run.
Structured review of AWS, Azure, and GCP environments. We examine IAM policies and trust relationships, public exposure of storage, compute, and management planes, network paths between accounts and subscriptions, and the logging and alerting gaps that would leave you blind during an incident. Findings come with the exact configuration change required, not a pointer to vendor documentation.
Phishing simulation and pretexting exercises run under written rules agreed with you in advance. We measure real behavior, including click rates, credential submission, and how quickly staff report what they saw, then give you data precise enough to target awareness training where it will actually change outcomes. Campaigns are designed around your organization, never recycled from a template library.
Every engagement follows a documented method built on recognized standards. Before any traffic leaves our infrastructure you know what we will do, in what order, and under which constraints.
We start with your architecture, your data flows, and the adversaries you realistically face. Together we define targets, exclusions, test windows, credentials, and success criteria, then model the threats that matter to your business rather than walking a generic checklist. The output is a signed scope and rules of engagement that both sides can point to at any moment during testing.
We enumerate the attack surface in scope, including exposed services, application entry points, API schemas, identity flows, and third-party dependencies. Automated discovery is only a starting point. Testers verify every result by hand, discard the noise, and build a map of trust boundaries and data paths that guides the rest of the engagement.
We exploit the weaknesses that matter, carefully. Exploitation is rate limited, logged on our side, and confined to the agreed scope, with destructive actions simulated rather than executed. Where a vulnerability is confirmed we capture request and response evidence sufficient for your engineers to reproduce the issue exactly, without guesswork.
Individual findings understate risk. We chain them the way a real intruder would, for example a low-severity information leak feeding a credential attack that opens an internal pivot, and we document the full path. Severity ratings reflect demonstrated impact in your environment, not a theoretical worst case copied from a vulnerability database.
You receive the report within five business days of testing completion, followed by a live debrief with the people who did the testing. Once your team ships fixes, we retest every reported finding once at no additional cost and issue an updated report you can hand to customers, partners, or auditors.
A penetration test is only as useful as the document it produces. Ours are written twice over: once for the people who allocate budget and accept risk, and once for the people who write the patches. Both audiences get what they need from the same report.
Reports and evidence travel only through an encrypted channel agreed at scoping, never by plain email, and remain accessible to you after the engagement closes.
AI features ship faster than their security models mature. That gap is where we test.
Product teams wire language models into search, customer support, and internal tooling in a matter of weeks, while the discipline for securing those systems is still being written. The result is a growing class of software that holds real privileges and touches real data behind an interface that can be talked into misbehaving. Traditional application testing catches some of it. The rest requires testers who understand how models fail.
We test LLM applications as systems, not just as models. That means the prompts, the retrieval pipeline, the tool and function calling layer, the privilege boundary between the model and your backend, and every path by which untrusted content can reach the context window. Test cases align to the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications and are revised as the attack literature moves, because this field changes faster than any annual standard can track.
If your product exposes an assistant, an agent, or an API wrapped around a model, we can tell you what an adversarial user can make it do before one of them demonstrates it for you.
A red team engagement asks a different question than a penetration test. Not which vulnerabilities exist, but whether your organization detects and responds when someone uses them with intent. We agree on objectives that mirror your actual threat model, such as reaching a payment system or exfiltrating a marked file, then pursue them the way a capable intruder would.
Every operation runs under written rules of engagement, and every action maps to MITRE ATT&CK techniques so your defenders can replay the operation step by step afterward. The final report reads as a timeline of the intrusion set against a timeline of your detections, which is exactly the comparison your security program needs.
The right model depends on the question you need answered and the time you can afford. We will tell you plainly which one fits, and it is often not the most expensive one.
We begin with what an external attacker has: a domain name, an app store listing, an IP range. This model answers the most realistic question but spends part of the budget on discovery rather than depth. Choose it when you want to know what an outsider can reach unaided, or when you want to exercise your detection capability along the way.
We test with limited knowledge, typically standard user credentials and a short description of the architecture. Most engagements land here for good reason: it concentrates testing time on depth instead of discovery while preserving an attacker's perspective on your trust boundaries. It is usually the strongest value per testing day.
Full transparency, including source code access, architecture diagrams, and direct conversations with your engineers. This model finds the most issues per day of testing and is the honest choice before a major launch, or for high-assurance components such as authentication, cryptography, and payment flows where missing a flaw is not acceptable.
A defined scope, tested thoroughly, reported once, and retested after your fixes ship. This is the right instrument before a launch, after a major change, to satisfy a customer or regulatory requirement, or as an annual checkpoint. The retest of fixed findings is included, so a one-time engagement still ends with verified remediation rather than an open list.
A standing engagement with recurring test cycles across your portfolio, scheduled quarterly or aligned to your release cadence. Findings feed directly into your issue tracker, retests run as fixes ship instead of months later, and each cycle starts from accumulated knowledge of your systems rather than from zero. Programs suit teams that ship weekly and cannot wait for an annual test to learn what changed.
Most single-scope assessments run one to three weeks of active testing, depending on the size and complexity of the target. Red team operations typically run four to eight weeks including planning. The report arrives within five business days of testing completion, and you get a firm duration estimate at scoping, before you commit to anything.
Disruption in a well-run test is rare and never accidental. We agree on test windows, rate limits, and exclusions during scoping, simulate destructive actions instead of executing them, and stop immediately if monitoring on either side shows instability. Where tolerance for risk is very low, we can test a staging environment that mirrors production and validate only specific findings against the live system.
Senior practitioners employed by us. We do not outsource or subcontract testing, and the people who scope your engagement are the same people who execute it and lead your debrief. You will know who is assigned to your engagement before it begins, and you can speak with them directly throughout.
Findings, evidence, and any data touched during testing are stored encrypted, shared only through a secure channel agreed at scoping, and retained no longer than the engagement requires, after which they are destroyed on a documented schedule. Reports never travel by plain email, and access on our side is restricted to the team assigned to your engagement.
Yes. Every report includes specific remediation guidance for each finding, the debrief is open to your engineers with questions encouraged, and we remain reachable during your remediation window for clarifications. Once fixes land, the included retest verifies them and the report is updated to reflect the result.
Before significant launches, after major architectural changes, and at least annually as a baseline. Authentication changes, new API surfaces, cloud migrations, and new AI features are all strong triggers. If you are unsure whether a change warrants testing, ask us and you will get a straight answer, including when the answer is that you do not need us yet.
Tell us what you are building and we will propose a scope, an engagement model, and a timeline within a few business days.