Quality Engineering
Security TestingOWASP-aligned vulnerability assessment.
We run OWASP-aligned security Testing on web applications and APIs, injection, broken auth, access control, sensitive-data exposure, and report findings with reproduction steps and remediation guidance, not just scanner output.
What this covers
OWASP Top 10 aligned vulnerability assessment
Authentication, session, and access-control Testing
API security Testing, auth bypass, injection, data exposure
Dependency and configuration review
Prioritized findings with reproduction steps and fixes
Application security Testing, honestly scoped
We do application-layer security Testing as part of Quality Engineering: finding the vulnerability classes that ordinary functional Testing walks straight past.
We do application-layer security Testing as part of Quality Engineering: finding the vulnerability classes that ordinary functional Testing walks straight past. That means the OWASP Top 10 in practice, broken access control, injection, authentication weaknesses, insecure direct object references, misconfiguration, sensitive data exposure, validated against your actual application rather than a generic checklist.
We are explicit about the boundary. This is not a substitute for a certified penetration test, a red-team engagement, or a formal compliance audit, and we will say so rather than let a report imply coverage it does not have. What it does give you is continuous, early detection of the flaws that most often reach production: the ones introduced by ordinary feature work between annual assessments.
Where real applications leak
Broken access control is consistently the most common serious finding, and it is a Testing problem before it is a security problem.
Broken access control is consistently the most common serious finding, and it is a Testing problem before it is a security problem. Can a user change an ID in a URL and read another customer's invoice? Can a tenant's token reach another tenant's data? Does the API enforce the same permission the UI hides the button for? These are authorisation-matrix questions, and we test them role by role, boundary by boundary, the same discipline that underpins our API Testing work.
Alongside that: input handling and injection paths, session and token lifecycle including expiry and revocation, password reset and account recovery flows, file upload handling, security headers and transport configuration, third-party dependency exposure, and whether errors and logs quietly leak stack traces, tokens or personal data.
Findings you can actually action
Security reports fail when they arrive as a scanner dump.
Security reports fail when they arrive as a scanner dump. Every finding we raise carries a reproduction path, an assessment of real exploitability in your context rather than a raw CVSS number, the data or capability genuinely at risk, and a remediation direction a developer can act on. False positives are filtered before they reach you, verifying them is our job, not your team's.
Engagement path
How the engagement runs
Every Security Testing engagement runs the same way: understand the risk, build the thing that reduces it, prove it works, hand it over.
Scope and threat surface
Roles, trust boundaries, data classifications and integration points, agreed in writing along with what is explicitly out of scope.
Authorisation matrix Testing
Every role against every sensitive operation and object, including horizontal access between tenants and users, where the serious findings usually are.
Injection, session and configuration
Input handling, token lifecycle, recovery flows, upload handling, headers, transport settings and dependency exposure, verified by hand, not just scanned.
Verified reporting and retest
Confirmed findings with reproduction and remediation direction, prioritised by real exploitability, then a retest once fixes land.
Deliverables
What you get
Artefacts you keep and can run without us. Everything lives in your repositories and your tooling.
Handover pack
6 artefacts · yours to keep
A written scope stating clearly what was and was not assessed
A tested authorisation matrix covering roles, tenants and sensitive objects
Verified findings with reproduction steps and false positives already filtered
Risk ratings based on exploitability in your context, not raw scanner scores
Remediation direction written for developers rather than auditors
A retest pass confirming fixes actually closed the issue
Self-check
Signs your team needs this
If more than one of these is true, it is usually cheaper to fix now than after the next release.
Access control is enforced in the UI and never verified at the API
A customer, auditor or prospect has asked for security evidence you do not have
Dependencies are updated reactively, when something breaks or a headline lands
Personal or payment data is handled but has never been traced end to end
Security review happens once a year, while the product ships weekly
A Senior Engineer replies within one business day. NDA first.
Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Straight answers, written the way we'd say them on a call.
Still curious? Talk to usKeep reading
Where to go next
Security Testing rarely stands alone. These are the disciplines and resources teams pair it with most often.
Get a Free Review of Your Testing Setup
No pitch, just findings: what's working, what's costing you time, and where Automation pays off fastest.
- A Senior Engineer replies, not a sales layer
- Within one business day, every time
- NDA available before you share any details
16+
Years QA leadership
16
Testing disciplines
6
Markets served
1
Business day to reply
Tell us where quality hurts
Prefer to talk? Book a 30-minute call