01Practice
Manual penetration testing, VAPT and red teaming services
Manual, practitioner-led penetration testing and adversary simulation across applications, networks, cloud environments, Active Directory and your people. Every finding is validated, evidenced and risk-rated. No scanner dumps.
- Name
- Penetration Testing & VAPT
- Line
- 01 · Cybersecurity
- Type
- Practice, engaged on its own or within a program
01The problem
Automated scans miss what attackers find first.
Many breaches start with things a vulnerability scanner will never flag: chained misconfigurations, broken business logic, over-privileged identities, and trust relationships nobody documented. Point-in-time compliance scans give you a list of CVEs. They do not tell you whether an attacker can reach your data.
Offensive security answers a different question: given a realistic adversary with realistic access, what can actually be compromised, and what should you fix first?
- Validated, not theoretical
- Every vulnerability we report is manually confirmed with evidence and reproduction steps. Reports are not padded with unexploitable scanner output.
- Attack-path thinking
- Individual findings matter less than the paths they create. We map how issues chain together, from an exposed endpoint to domain compromise.
- Fix-first reporting
- Reports are ordered by real-world exploitability and business impact, with remediation guidance your engineers can act on and a retest of fixes as part of the engagement.
02Scope
What penetration testing covers.
Web Application VAPT
Manual testing against OWASP standards: authentication, authorization, session management, injection, SSRF, business logic and client-side attack surface.
Mobile Application VAPT
iOS and Android testing: insecure storage, API abuse, reverse engineering, runtime manipulation and platform misconfigurations.
API Security Testing
REST and GraphQL testing for broken object-level authorization, mass assignment, rate-limit gaps and injection.
Network VAPT
External and internal infrastructure testing covering exposed services, exploit validation, segmentation and lateral movement.
External Infrastructure Testing
Internet-facing attack surface assessment: perimeter services, VPNs, mail, DNS and exposed management planes.
Internal Network Testing
Assumed-breach testing from inside the network. Privilege escalation, lateral movement and access to crown-jewel systems.
Wireless Security Testing
Enterprise Wi-Fi assessment: rogue access points, weak authentication, segmentation between corporate and guest networks.
Cloud Penetration Testing
AWS, Azure and GCP environments. IAM privilege escalation, misconfigured storage, serverless and metadata-service abuse.
Active Directory Security Assessment
Kerberos attacks, delegation abuse, ACL misconfigurations, tiering violations and paths to domain compromise.
Red Teaming
Objective-based campaigns that test detection and response as well as prevention, mapped to MITRE ATT&CK.
Adversary Simulation
Emulation of specific threat-actor tradecraft relevant to your sector, validating your detection coverage against known TTPs.
Social Engineering & Phishing Simulation
Controlled phishing, pretexting and payload campaigns that measure and improve human resilience.
Vulnerability Assessment
Structured, repeatable identification and risk-rating of vulnerabilities across your estate as an ongoing program.
Secure Configuration Review
Hardening review of operating systems, databases, network devices and middleware against CIS benchmarks.
Secure Code / Source Code Review
Manual and tool-assisted review of source code for security defects that dynamic testing cannot reach.
Container & Kubernetes Security Testing
Image, registry, runtime and cluster assessment covering RBAC, network policy, secrets handling and escape paths.
DevSecOps Security Assessment
Pipeline-focused testing: CI/CD trust boundaries, secrets exposure, artifact integrity and build-system attack paths.
Inside a web application engagement
Every application engagement covers the full attack surface, tested manually and validated with evidence:
03Approach
How a penetration testing engagement runs.
Scoping
We map your environment, define objectives and rules of engagement, and agree what a meaningful result looks like. Scope is sized to the objective, with no inflated day counts.
Reconnaissance & mapping
Attack-surface enumeration and threat modeling to focus effort where compromise is most likely and most damaging.
Manual testing & exploitation
Practitioners test and exploit within agreed boundaries, using the tradecraft real adversaries use. Work is aligned to OWASP, PTES and MITRE ATT&CK.
Validation & risk rating
Findings are confirmed, chained into attack paths and rated with CVSS plus business context: what the finding means for your data as well as its score.
Reporting & debrief
An executive summary for leadership and a technical report for engineers: evidence, reproduction steps and a prioritized remediation roadmap.
Remediation support & retest
We stay available through the fix cycle and retest remediated findings so you can show closure to auditors and customers. Where you want help fixing, our development and cloud teams can work alongside your engineers.
04Deliverables
Penetration testing deliverables.
- Executive summary with business-level risk narrative
- Technical findings with evidence and reproduction steps
- CVSS scoring with contextual severity adjustment
- Attack-path analysis and chained-exploit documentation
- Prioritized remediation roadmap
- Retest of remediated findings, as scoped in the engagement
- Letter summarizing test scope and dates for customers and auditors, on request
When this work fits
- Product teams shipping customer-facing applications
- Organizations preparing for ISO 27001, SOC 2 or regulatory audits
- Companies whose enterprise customers require penetration test reports
- Security teams validating detection and response with red teaming
- Organizations that have not yet had a manual, evidence-based test
05Questions
Penetration testing: questions we are asked
A scan enumerates known CVEs automatically and produces noise. Our engagements are manual: practitioners test logic, chain findings into attack paths and validate every result. You get fewer findings, and all of them real.
Rules of engagement are agreed up front, including test windows, excluded systems and emergency contacts. Destructive techniques are never used without explicit authorization, and testing is planned to avoid operational impact.
A focused web application test typically runs one to three weeks depending on complexity. Red team campaigns run longer. The statement of work gives you a precise timeline after scoping.
Yes. Retesting of remediated findings is part of the engagement scope, and we issue an updated report you can share with customers and auditors.
Members of our team hold OSCP, CISSP, CISM, CEH, CHFI and more. These are individual certifications, not company accreditations.
A vulnerability assessment identifies and rates weaknesses, largely with tools, across a wide scope. A penetration test goes further: a tester exploits weaknesses manually to show what an attacker could reach. VAPT is the combined term, common in India and the Middle East, for doing both in one engagement. Ongoing assessment is covered by vulnerability management.
Black-box testing starts with no information and shows what an outsider can find. Grey-box testing provides accounts and basic documentation, which lets testers reach authorization and business logic flaws that sit behind login. White-box testing adds source code and architecture. For most applications grey-box gives the most useful findings for the time spent. Red team work is normally black-box.
PCI DSS requires penetration testing of the cardholder data environment. ISO 27001 and SOC 2 auditors commonly accept a test report as evidence of technical vulnerability management and security testing. Many enterprise customers ask for a recent report during vendor review. We scope and report so the evidence fits the requirement. Whether it satisfies an audit is the auditor's decision.
Yes, and for most products it should be. A mobile app, its web front end and the API behind them share authentication, authorization and data. Testing them together exposes flaws that appear only where they meet, such as an API that trusts checks done in the mobile client. Each component still gets its own coverage and its own section in the report.
Often alongside