Find Vulnerabilities Before Attackers Do. Our certified ethical hackers simulate real-world attacks to uncover vulnerabilities in your infrastructure, applications and people, so you can fix them first.
External and internal network pen tests identifying vulnerabilities in infrastructure, network devices and segmentation controls.
OWASP-based assessments of web and mobile applications: injection flaws, broken authentication, insecure deserialization and more.
Phishing simulations, vishing and physical access tests to assess your organization's human layer of security.
Misconfiguration reviews and privilege escalation testing for AWS, Azure and Google Cloud environments.
Automated and manual scanning of your attack surface with prioritized remediation guidance based on actual risk.
Full-scope adversary simulation testing your detection and response capabilities against a persistent, goal-oriented attacker.
Every engagement delivers a comprehensive report with an executive summary, technical findings, CVSS risk ratings and prioritized remediation steps your team can act on immediately.
Get a QuoteBusiness-level risk overview for C-suite and board stakeholders.
Detailed vulnerability descriptions with proof-of-concept and CVE references.
CVSS-scored findings ranked by actual exploitability and business impact.
Optional re-test to confirm vulnerabilities are properly remediated.
The value of a test rests on the precision of the scope and the usability of the report. That is why the work neither starts with scanning nor ends with report delivery.
We define what is tested and from which perspective, what is off limits, and who is notified if we find a critical flaw mid-test. We do not start without written authorisation and a contact protocol.
We gather the attack surface: reachable services, technologies, versions, publicly available information. This generates the attack hypotheses.
Manual testing, not scanner runs. Individual flaws are chained together, because real risk is revealed by the chain, not by the isolated finding.
Findings documented with reproducible evidence, prioritised by business impact. We walk the team through it, then run a verification round after remediation.
We do not work ad hoc: we follow recognised methodologies so that coverage is demonstrable and comparable with the next test.
| Area | Methodology / framework | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Web application | OWASP WSTG, OWASP Top 10 | Injection, authentication, authorisation, business logic |
| Internal network | PTES, MITRE ATT&CK | Lateral movement, privilege escalation, exfiltration |
| External perimeter | OSSTMM, NIST SP 800-115 | Exposed services, misconfiguration |
| Social engineering | MITRE ATT&CK (Initial Access) | Phishing resilience, awareness measurement |
| OT / ICS | IEC 62443, passive discovery | Segmentation verification, zone boundaries |
| Severity rating | CVSS v3.1 + business impact | Not just the score: context too |
A vulnerability scan is automated scanning: it lists what known flaws might exist, with many false positives. A penetration test is human expert work: it shows what an attacker can actually reach, and findings are proven. The most significant difference is chaining, three separately "medium" flaws combined often yield domain administrator rights, and only a human spots that. The two are not interchangeable: scanning should be continuous, testing regular.
In standard IT environments the risk is low, and during scope alignment we exclude dangerous operations (denial-of-service testing, for instance, unless explicitly requested). For production systems we agree a time window, and there is a direct contact channel to halt the test immediately if anything unusual is observed. OT environments are different, there we work with passive discovery by default, performing active work in a lab or during planned downtime.
It depends on scope. A medium-sized web application is typically 5–10 working days, an internal network test 5–15 days, a full external and internal assessment 3–4 weeks. Add report production (3–5 days) and the post-remediation retest. At scope alignment we always give a specific number of days, not a range.
Both have merit, but in practice a grey-box approach delivers the best return: we receive baseline access and documentation, so the tester does not spend half the engagement on reconnaissance but on finding real flaws. A fully blind (black-box) test costs more and finds less in the same time. If you specifically want to measure detection capability, a red team exercise is the right instrument.
We walk the technical team through the report so that interpretation of the remediation guidance is not left open. After fixes are applied we run a verification round and issue a confirmation report on which findings are genuinely resolved. This step is the one most often skipped, yet without a retest you do not know whether the flaw is actually gone, only that someone worked on it.
Yes. NIS2 measure area five (security in acquisition, development and maintenance) and area six (measuring the effectiveness of security measures) effectively require regular, documented testing. The ISO 27001 control on technical compliance review points the same way. On request we provide a compliance extract with the report that can be attached directly to audit documentation.