OWASP Methodology

Web Application Penetration Testing Services

Comprehensive security assessment of your web applications covering OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, authentication flaws, business logic errors, and more. Protect your users and data from sophisticated attacks.

Coverage

What We Test

Comprehensive testing across all web application attack vectors

OWASP Top 10

Complete coverage of all OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities including injection, broken authentication, and XSS

Authentication Testing

Session management, password policies, MFA bypass attempts, and credential stuffing resistance

Business Logic

Testing application workflows for logic flaws that could lead to unauthorized actions or data access

Authorization Testing

Privilege escalation, IDOR vulnerabilities, and access control bypass attempts

Input Validation

SQL injection, XSS, command injection, and all forms of input manipulation attacks

API Integration

Testing API endpoints exposed by the web application for security weaknesses

Process

Our Testing Methodology

A systematic approach based on OWASP and PTES standards

1

Reconnaissance

Map application structure, identify entry points, and enumerate technologies

2

Authentication Analysis

Test login mechanisms, session handling, and credential management

3

Authorization Testing

Verify access controls and test for privilege escalation

4

Input Validation

Test all input fields for injection vulnerabilities

5

Business Logic

Analyze workflows for logic flaws and abuse scenarios

6

Reporting

Detailed findings with PoC, risk ratings, and remediation guidance

Deliverables

What You Receive

Comprehensive documentation to support your security program

  • Executive summary for leadership and stakeholders
  • Technical report with all vulnerabilities and evidence
  • Risk-rated findings with CVSS scores
  • Step-by-step remediation recommendations
  • Proof-of-concept demonstrations
  • Retest validation after fixes
How it works

What a Web Application Penetration Test Looks Like

From scoping call to verified fixes, with no surprises in the middle

Scoping in one call

We size the test on the application as it really is, not on a page count. The scoping call covers the number of distinct user roles, the count of dynamic pages and API endpoints behind the UI, whether there is a payment or file-upload path, and which environment we test in. From that we fix the number of testing days and the reporting date before any work starts.

  • Typical effort: 5 to 8 testing days for a single application with two or three roles; larger multi-tenant platforms are phased by module.
  • Access we need: one account per role, a staging or production URL, and any IP allow-listing for our testing egress.
  • Rules of engagement: agreed testing window, emergency contact on both sides, and an explicit list of anything out of bounds such as denial-of-service or third-party integrations.

Manual testing on top of tooling, not instead of it

Automated scanning runs on day one to map the surface and catch the noise. The remaining days are hands-on: chaining low-severity issues into real impact, abusing business logic that no scanner understands, and proving each finding with a working request-response pair. Every reported vulnerability has been reproduced by a tester, so the developer fixing it never chases a false positive.

Reporting built for developers and for the board

You receive a one-page executive summary with a risk rating and the three things to fix first, then a technical report where each finding carries the affected endpoint, exact reproduction steps, evidence, CVSS score, and a remediation that names the framework-level fix rather than a generic recommendation. Findings are delivered as they are confirmed, so critical issues reach your team within hours, not at the end of the engagement.

Retest and sign-off

Once your team ships the fixes we retest every critical and high finding at no extra cost within 30 days and issue a clean letter of attestation. If a fix is incomplete you get the exact bypass, not a red mark.

Coverage

Vulnerability Classes We Test For

The categories that produce real findings in production web applications

Authentication and session management

Credential stuffing resistance, rate limiting on login and reset flows, multi-factor bypass through alternate endpoints, session fixation, token entropy and lifetime, remember-me implementations, and the password-reset chain from request to token consumption. Single sign-on integrations are tested for SAML assertion manipulation and OAuth or OpenID Connect misconfiguration.

Authorisation and access control

Horizontal access between customers, vertical escalation from user to administrator, insecure direct object references across every identifier we can enumerate, function-level access on hidden administrative routes, and mass-assignment of privileged attributes. This category produces the highest-impact findings in most tests because frameworks do not enforce it for you.

Injection and input handling

SQL, NoSQL, LDAP, and command injection with out-of-band confirmation where the response is blind; server-side template injection; stored, reflected, and DOM-based cross-site scripting including content-security-policy bypass; server-side request forgery against cloud metadata services; XML external entities; and file-upload paths that lead to code execution or stored payloads.

Business logic and workflow abuse

Price and quantity tampering, coupon and referral abuse, race conditions on balance or inventory operations, step-skipping in multi-stage flows, and approval bypass. These are found by understanding what the application is for, which is why they are tested manually by someone who has read your documentation.

Platform and configuration

Security headers, cookie flags, TLS configuration, verbose error handling, exposed debug and administrative endpoints, outdated components with known exploits, cross-origin resource sharing policy, and cache behaviour that leaks one user's response to another.

Compliance

Standards and Compliance Mapping

Frameworks the test is mapped to

Every finding is tagged to the control it evidences, so the report drops straight into an audit pack instead of needing a second translation exercise. For web application engagements the mappings we deliver by default are:

  • PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 11.4: external and internal penetration testing on a defined methodology, with retest evidence for exploitable findings.
  • ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A 8.8 (management of technical vulnerabilities) and A 8.29 (security testing in development and acceptance).
  • SOC 2 Common Criteria CC7.1 and CC4.1: vulnerability identification and independent evaluation of control effectiveness.
  • OWASP Web Security Testing Guide, OWASP ASVS, and PTES as the underlying methodology references cited in the report.
  • Regulatory expectations for reasonable security safeguards, including data-protection regimes such as the GDPR and India's DPDP Act, where the application handles personal data.

What auditors receive

The report includes a methodology statement, tester attestation, scope and exclusions, a findings register with CVSS v3.1 scores, evidence for each finding, and a signed retest letter once fixes are verified. Customers use the same pack for customer security questionnaires, cyber-insurance renewals, and procurement due diligence.

Further reading: Our web app pentest methodology, step by step · OAuth 2.0 misconfigurations attackers exploit · Burp Suite vs OWASP ZAP

FAQ

Common Questions

Secure Your Web Applications Today

Don't wait for attackers to find vulnerabilities. Get a comprehensive security assessment.

Get Started