Offensive Security · Web Application VAPT Service dossier · 01/12

Web Application Penetration Testing

Your web applications are the front door to your data, your users and your business logic. We test them the way a determined attacker would — manually, methodically, and beyond what any scanner can reach.

Veteran researchers. CERT-In empaneled. We find what automated tools miss.

Discipline
Offensive
Standards
OWASP WSTG · PTES · OWASP ASVS
Models
Black-box · grey-box · white-box
Retest
Remediation retest included
Credential
CERT-In Empaneled
02

The most exposed surface you own

A web application is uniquely exposed: it is reachable by anyone, on any network, at any hour.

It accepts untrusted input by design, mediates access to your most sensitive data, and encodes the business rules that competitors and criminals alike would love to bend. That combination makes web application security testing not a compliance checkbox but a core defence of both the application and the organization behind it.

Most testing stops at the surface — a scanner crawls the app, flags known signatures, and produces a list. Real attackers don't work from a signature list. They reason about how your application is built, chain small weaknesses into serious compromise, and abuse legitimate functionality in ways no tool is designed to anticipate. Our assessments are built around that reality: automated tooling for breadth, and experienced researchers for the depth, judgment and exploitation that actually mirror an adversary.

"We don't just scan for known bugs. We think like attackers — and report what we could actually do."
03

What an attacker is really after

Every finding we report ladders up to a real adversarial goal. We test for the outcomes attackers pursue, not just the vulnerabilities in isolation.

01

Bypassing authentication

Reaching protected functionality without valid credentials.

02

Escalating privileges

Turning a low-privilege foothold into administrative control.

03

Accessing sensitive data

Reading records, secrets or PII that should never be exposed.

04

Disrupting legitimate use

Degrading or denying service to genuine users.

05

Gathering intelligence

Harvesting information that enables a deeper attack.

06

Manipulating information

Tampering with data the application trusts as authoritative.

07

Abusing business processes

Exploiting the logic of the application — checkout, transfers, workflows — to gain unfair or unauthorized advantage.

04

A disciplined, attacker-led methodology

We follow a structured methodology aligned with industry standards — the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG) and the Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES) — so coverage is repeatable and defensible, while the exploitation itself stays creative and adversarial. Every engagement moves through six phases.

INFORMATIONGATHERING THREATMODELING VULNERABILITYANALYSIS EXPLOITATION POST-EXPLOITATION REPORTING 01 02 03 04 05 IN PARALLEL 06
FIG. 01PTES lifecycle — six phases; exploitation ∥ post-exploitation converge at reporting
PHASE 01 Information Gathering Map the application: technologies, entry points, roles, data flows and the full attack surface.
PHASE 02 Threat Modeling Reason like the adversary. Identify the assets worth attacking and the most likely paths to them.
PHASE 03 Vulnerability Analysis Combine automated discovery with manual review to surface candidate weaknesses across the surface.
PHASE 04 Exploitation Safely prove impact. Confirm each finding by demonstrating what an attacker could actually achieve.
PHASE 05 Post-Exploitation Measure how far a foothold reaches: privilege escalation, lateral movement and data exposure.
PHASE 06 Reporting Deliver clear, prioritized, reproducible findings with evidence and concrete remediation guidance.
05

Tools find the obvious. People find the dangerous.

Both have a role. We use them for what each does best — and we never let a scan stand in for an assessment.

Automated — breadth

Breadth, at speed

Automated tooling rapidly maps the application and flags known, signature-based weaknesses across a wide surface. We treat its output as a starting point — every result is triaged by an analyst and false positives are eliminated before anything reaches your report.

Manual — depth

Depth, with judgment

The findings that matter most — broken access control, authentication bypass, injection chains, session-handling flaws and especially business-logic abuse — require a human who understands intent. Our researchers manually exploit, chain and validate, surfacing the issues that no automated tool is built to reason about.

06

Choose the depth of visibility

We tailor the engagement to how much we know going in. More context means deeper coverage in the same time.

Less context More context
Black-box

We test the application from the outside with no internal knowledge or credentials — exactly as an anonymous external attacker would encounter it. Best for validating your real internet-facing exposure.

Grey-box
Most common model

We test with partial knowledge: valid user accounts across roles, documentation, API specifications or an application walk-through. This is the most common and cost-effective model, letting us reach authenticated and role-specific flaws far more efficiently.

White-box

We test with full visibility — including architecture and, where in scope, source code — for the most thorough coverage of complex or business-critical applications.

07

What we test against

Our coverage maps to the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide and is benchmarked against the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS). Across an engagement we systematically probe the following control areas:

01 Authentication & Authorization Login flows, multi-factor handling, and whether every action is properly authorized for the user performing it.
WSTG · IdentityWSTG · AuthenticationWSTG · Authorization
02 Access Control Horizontal and vertical privilege boundaries; insecure direct object references (IDOR) and forced-browsing exposure.
WSTG · Authorization
03 Session Management Token generation, lifetime, rotation, fixation, and secure invalidation on logout.
WSTG · Session Management
04 User Input Handling Injection across the stack: SQL injection, command injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and template/expression injection.
WSTG · Input ValidationWSTG · Client-side
05 Data Validation Server-side enforcement of every constraint that client-side controls only suggest.
WSTG · Input Validation
06 Business Logic Flaws Abuse of legitimate workflows: pricing, quantity, sequence, race conditions and authorization assumptions.
WSTG · Business Logic
07 Data in Transit TLS configuration, certificate validity and protection against interception and downgrade.
WSTG · Cryptography
08 Data Protection Storage of sensitive data and secrets, and exposure through responses, logs or caches.
WSTG · CryptographyWSTG · Config/Deployment
09 Password Management Credential strength policy, secure reset and recovery flows, and resistance to enumeration and brute force.
WSTG · Authentication
10 HTTP Security Security headers, cookie attributes, CORS policy and safe handling of methods and redirects.
WSTG · Config/Deployment
11 Error Handling Failure behaviour that neither leaks internal detail nor leaves the application in an unsafe state.
WSTG · Error Handling
08

How an engagement works

A clear path from kickoff to remediation — designed to give your team findings they can act on immediately.

01
Build a model of the application, fast
We rapidly construct a working model of how the application operates — its roles, workflows, data flows and trust boundaries — so testing is targeted from the first day.
02
Automated discovery for early signal
We run automated analysis across the surface to surface candidate weaknesses quickly and prioritize where deeper, manual attention will pay off.
03
Validate every finding by hand
Each candidate issue is confirmed manually. We discard false positives and prove genuine findings by demonstrating real, safe exploitation.
04
Go deeper
We chain findings, probe role boundaries and explore beyond the obvious — pursuing the privilege escalation and lateral paths an attacker would.
05
Surface the business-logic flaws
We test the application's logic itself: the abuse cases unique to your product that no generic ruleset can anticipate, and which are often the most damaging.
09

What we can test

The same attacker mindset extends across your application portfolio.

10

What you receive

Every engagement ends in a report your team can act on — written for both the engineers who will fix the issues and the leaders who must understand the risk.

01

Executive summary

Risk posture and business impact in plain language for leadership.

02

Detailed findings

Each issue with severity, affected components, reproducible proof-of-concept and clear evidence.

03

Remediation guidance

Specific, prioritized fixes — not generic advice.

04

Standards mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP WSTG categories and the OWASP Top 10.

05

Remediation retest

We re-verify fixes so you can confirm the risk is genuinely closed.

06

Direct researcher access

A debrief with the people who did the testing, not a handoff to a call centre.

CERT-In Empaneled OWASP WSTG OWASP ASVS OWASP Top 10

Supports ISO 27001, SOC 2, PCI-DSS and RBI/SEBI assessment requirements

11

Frequently asked questions

How is this different from a vulnerability scan?

A scanner produces a list of potential issues from known signatures. A penetration test confirms what is actually exploitable, chains weaknesses the way an attacker would, and finds the logic and access-control flaws scanners cannot reason about. We use scanning as one input — never as the assessment itself.

Will testing disrupt our production environment?

We scope and pace engagements to avoid operational impact, coordinate windows with your team, and treat any potentially intrusive testing with explicit agreement. Many clients prefer a staging environment for the most aggressive phases.

Black-box or grey-box — which should we choose?

Grey-box is the most common and cost-effective: with valid accounts and documentation, we reach authenticated and role-specific flaws far more efficiently. Black-box best reflects a pure external attacker. We will recommend the right model for your goals during scoping.

How often should we test?

At minimum annually, and after any significant change to the application, its authentication, or its business logic — as well as when compliance requires it. Modern, frequently shipping applications benefit from a recurring cadence.

Do you retest after we fix the issues?

Yes. Remediation retesting is included so you can confirm each finding is genuinely resolved.

Offensive Security · Web Application VAPT

Find it before they do.

Tell us what you're building and we'll scope an assessment that fits — or connect you directly with a researcher.