Security Audits
Web & Application Security Audits - Findings Your Engineers Can Actually Fix
A web application security audit is a structured, evidence-based review of an application’s code, configuration, infrastructure, and access controls against recognized standards including the OWASP Top 10. Ours delivers severity-ranked findings with the specific remediation for each - not a scanner export with the flaws described and the fixes left to you.
What We Review
There’s a genre of security deliverable that helps nobody: sixty pages of unranked automated output, every item marked “medium,” with remediation advice like “implement proper input validation.” It satisfies a procurement checkbox and changes nothing about your actual risk. An audit should tell you three things clearly: what’s exploitable, how badly it would hurt, and exactly what to change. Anything else is homework disguised as a report.
Application Layer
Authentication and session management, authorization and access control (broken access control remains the most prevalent category in the OWASP Top 10), input validation and injection exposure, business logic flaws, and file handling.
API Security
Authentication, authorization at the object level, rate limiting, excessive data exposure, and the endpoints that never made it into the documentation - undocumented endpoints are where a surprising number of real findings live.
Configuration and Infrastructure
Cloud posture, TLS and security headers, secrets handling, environment separation, and container and CI/CD pipeline configuration.
Dependencies and Supply Chain
The third-party packages, plugins, and libraries your application trusts implicitly - with known-vulnerability status and update paths.
Authentication and Identity Integration
SSO configuration, token handling, password and MFA policy, and account recovery flows, which are frequently the weakest link in an otherwise solid system.
What You Receive
Severity-ranked findings with real exploitability assessment, not just theoretical scores
Evidence for each finding - reproduction steps, affected components, and impact
Specific remediation per finding, written for the developer who has to implement it
An executive summary that translates technical risk into business terms leadership can act on
Retest after remediation to verify the fixes actually closed the gaps
Why Our Audits Land Differently
Our auditors work alongside teams that build enterprise web platforms and production AI systems every day. That means remediation advice that’s engineering-realistic - accounting for your framework, your release process, and your constraints - rather than theoretically correct and practically ignored.
When was your application last properly reviewed?
Scoped to your highest-risk system, with a findings report your engineers can start on the day they receive it.
How We Prioritize Findings
Severity scores from tooling are context-free. A critical-rated vulnerability in an unreachable component matters less than a medium-rated one on your login page. We rank by realistic risk, which means weighing four things:
Exploitability in your environment. Is the vulnerable path actually reachable, authenticated, or exposed to the internet?
Impact if exploited. Data exposure, privilege escalation, service disruption, or financial loss - with your data classification applied rather than a generic assumption.
Attacker effort. Is this trivially automated, or does it require chained conditions and specific knowledge?
Blast radius. Does it compromise one account or every account? Access-control flaws frequently score modestly in scanners and catastrophically in reality.
The output is a ranked list where the top items are genuinely the top items. A report where everything is urgent is a report where nothing gets fixed.
The Findings We See Most Often
Across audits, the same categories dominate - which is useful, because it tells you where to look before we arrive:
Broken access control. Users reaching data or functions they shouldn’t, usually through direct object references or missing server-side authorization checks. Consistently the most prevalent category in the OWASP Top 10, and the one client teams are most surprised by.
Authorization gaps in APIs. The endpoint checks that you’re logged in but not that the record belongs to you.
Outdated dependencies with known CVEs. Unglamorous and extremely common.
Security misconfiguration. Default credentials, verbose errors leaking stack traces, permissive CORS, missing security headers, exposed admin interfaces.
Weak session handling. Tokens that don’t expire, missing invalidation on logout, session fixation.
Sensitive data exposure. Secrets in repositories, personal data in logs, unencrypted data at rest where classification requires it.
Insufficient logging. Not a breach in itself, but the reason a breach goes undetected for months. You cannot investigate what you never recorded.
Fixing Well, Not Just Fixing
Remediation quality matters as much as remediation speed. What we look for on retest: the class of bug fixed, not just the instance - if one endpoint lacked an authorization check, the pattern likely repeats; defence at the right layer, since input sanitization at the UI is not a substitute for server-side validation; a regression test so the same flaw can’t return in six months; and the root cause addressed where a finding points at a process problem rather than a code problem.
We retest after remediation and report on what actually closed, because an unverified fix is an assumption with a ticket number.
Frequently Asked Questions
Broken access control leads consistently, followed by API authorization gaps, outdated dependencies with known CVEs, security misconfiguration, weak session handling, sensitive data exposure, and insufficient logging. Access-control flaws are both the most prevalent and the most frequently underestimated.
By realistic risk in your environment - exploitability of the actual path, impact given your data classification, attacker effort required, and blast radius - rather than by tool-assigned severity. A report where everything is critical is a report where nothing gets fixed.
Review of application code and logic, authentication and access control, API security, configuration and infrastructure, and third-party dependencies, assessed against standards like the OWASP Top 10 - delivered as severity-ranked findings with specific remediation steps.
An audit is a systematic review of code, configuration, and controls to find weaknesses comprehensively. A penetration test simulates an attacker to prove exploitability of a subset of them. Audits give better coverage; pen tests give better proof. Mature programs use both.
One to three weeks for a typical web application, depending on codebase size, integration count, and whether source code access is provided. Source-code access materially improves coverage over black-box testing.
No. Testing is normally performed against staging environments with agreed scope and rules of engagement. Where production testing is necessary, it’s scheduled and rate-limited by agreement.
We can, or we can hand your team a precise remediation plan and retest afterwards. Both are common - there’s no requirement to buy remediation from your auditor, and we’d rather you had the choice.