Web Application Penetration Testing
Expert-led, manual web application penetration testing, by consultants who think like attackers.
Web Application Test Overview
What Is A Web Application Penetration Test?
Types Of Web Applications
The Web Applications We Test
We test the full spectrum of web-based applications, including:.
Corporate & Transactional Websites
Including e-commerce platforms handling payment and customer data.
Client, User & Supplier Portals
Applications with authenticated access and sensitive data flows.
Corporate Management Software & Intranets
Internal tools often overlooked in security programmes.
APIs & Microservices
REST, GraphQL, SOAP, and custom API architectures increasingly targeted by attackers.
Web Application Test Coverage
What Our Web Application Testing Covers
Our testing is aligned with OWASP and industry best practice, and scoped specifically to your application, not applied generically. Every assessment is conducted manually by our consultants, supported by specialist tooling where appropriate, to ensure we go beyond what any automated solution can surface.
Authentication & Session Management
> Login mechanisms, MFA, session tokens, and account lockout controls
> Account enumeration, brute force exposure, and lockout bypass
> Password reset flows and credential storage weaknesses
Authorisation & Access Control
> Broken object-level authorisation across all user roles
> Horizontal and vertical privilege escalation paths
> API endpoint access controls and unauthenticated data exposure
Injection Vulnerabilities
> SQL, command, LDAP, and XML injection across all input vectors
> Headers, cookies, and API parameters tested manually, not just form fields
> Second-order injection vulnerabilities
> Exploitation validated to confirm real-world impact, not theoretical risk
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
> Reflected, stored, and DOM-based XSS across all application entry points
> Filter bypass techniques and encoding weaknesses missed by scanners
> Content Security Policy implementation and browser-side defence effectiveness
Business Logic Flaws
> Workflow abuse, price manipulation, and unintended state transitions
> Trust boundary testing between user roles and integrated third-party services
> Vulnerabilities identifiable through understanding application behaviour
OWASP Top 10
> Full manual coverage of the industry-standard web application risk benchmark
>Testing aligned to the latest OWASP methodology & attacker techniques
> Findings mapped to OWASP classifications for compliance and audit reporting
Need OWASP ASVS-Aligned Reporting?
Our web application penetration tests can be delivered against the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS). Whether you need ASVS Level 1, 2, or 3 coverage, we'll scope and report against the standard in a format your team can act on and your auditors will accept.
Web Application Test Approach
How We Approach Web App Testing
Black Box
Black box testing mimics a real-life attack scenario, where we have basic knowledge of the web application, but have no access to the source code or any admin/user credentials. Black box assessments are typically used by clients who wish to find out if a malicious threat could gain access to a web application from the outside.
White Box
We are provided with source code, architecture documentation, and user credentials before testing begins. This approach assumes some level of attacker access and allows for deeper, more thorough coverage, particularly effective for identifying vulnerabilities in application logic and code-level weaknesses.
Grey Box (Recommended)
This is our preferred approach to web application penetration testing, as we believe it provides the best value test in terms of results. It is a hybrid approach (combining both white box and black box testing elements) and provides a security overview of the application from both the outside and the inside.
Our Test Process
Putting Your Web App To The Test
Every web app penetration test goes through a rigorous process to ensure you get the best possible results. Below we outline the key stages our testing goes through:.
Understand Your Requirements
We start every engagement by understanding your application, your environment, and what a successful test looks like for you. Our team will work with you to scope the assessment precisely, identifying which functionality, user roles, and areas of the application should be prioritised, before putting forward a bespoke proposal.
Manual, Expert-Led Testing
Your test is carried out by directly employed consultants with deep specialism in web application security. We use industry-standard tooling to support our work, but every finding is the result of manual investigation, not automated output. This means higher quality findings, greater coverage and results you can act on with confidence.
Reporting Tailored To Your Organisation
Our reports are written by humans, not generated by a tool. Technical findings are written with full exploitation detail and clear remediation guidance. Executive summaries give leadership and compliance stakeholders the overview they need. Where required, we can integrate with your existing ticketing systems or provide findings in-test for critical vulnerabilities.
Post-Test Remediation Support
We don't disappear when the report is delivered. Our consultants remain available to answer questions, assist with remediation prioritisation, and can provide fix checks to verify that vulnerabilities have been successfully resolved. Where compliance evidence is required, we can provide additional documentation to support audit requirements.
Frequently Asked Questions
Web Application Penetration Testing for Security-Mature Teams
If your organisation already tests regularly, you’re likely evaluating providers on different criteria than a team booking their first penetration test. The questions below cover how we work with teams who test frequently, rather than the basics of what a penetration test is. If you don’t see your question answered here, get in touch and we’ll walk you through it directly.
Is your testing automated or manual?
Our testing is manual, led by experienced testers, backed by tooling to support coverage rather than drive it. Automated scanning is good at surfacing known vulnerability classes but misses business logic flaws, authorization bypasses, and multi-step attack chains, the issues that tend to remain once a team has already remediated the basics. That gap is where manual testing earns its keep for organisations testing regularly.
Can we work with the same testing team across multiple engagements?
Where possible, yes. We try to maintain tester continuity for clients testing with us regularly, so the team retains context on your application rather than starting fresh each time. The consistency we're able to offer depends on the volume of work, larger, ongoing engagements give us more flexibility to keep the same testers assigned, while smaller or infrequent engagements are more likely to depend on availability.
Is there a benefit in providing source code?
Yes, if depth is the priority. Access to source code (hybrid or white-box testing) lets testers identify logic flaws, insecure configurations, and vulnerable dependencies faster and more thoroughly than testing through the interface alone. Black-box testing (no source code) more closely simulates a real external attacker, which is useful if that's specifically what you're validating. For clients testing regularly, a hybrid approach often makes sense once black-box tests have already covered the basics.
Should our WAF be turned on or off during testing?
It depends on the goal. Having the WAF off gives a clearer picture of the application's underlying security and is therefore the better choice for finding and fixing vulnerabilities in the app itself. Having the WAF on tests how well the WAF detects and blocks attacks in a realistic scenario, useful for validating the control or supporting compliance. For more information on WAF testing approaches you can read our thoughts here.
Does testing an AI-generated or AI-assisted codebase change your methodology?
Not fundamentally, our approach stays manual-led with tooling for support, regardless of how the code was written. What does change is where we focus attention: AI-assisted code tends to show certain patterns more often, like inconsistent input validation, insecure defaults carried over from training data, or the same vulnerability duplicated across multiple endpoints from a reused snippet. If a significant portion of your app was AI-generated, it's worth flagging at scoping so we can scope the assessment accordingly.
What does the report actually include, and can we see a sample?
Our reports go beyond a list of findings. Each vulnerability includes a clear description, risk rating, evidence (steps to reproduce, screenshots, or request/response data), and specific remediation guidance rather than generic advice. Reports also include an executive summary for stakeholders who need the headline risk picture without the technical detail, alongside the full technical detail for your engineering team.
Our sample report is available to download here.
Do you test APIs and business logic in depth?
Yes, our methodology covers API-specific attack surfaces (REST, GraphQL, gRPC), authentication and authorization logic, and workflow abuse cases that require a human tester to identify, not just endpoint enumeration.
How do you report critical findings?
Critical and high-severity findings are flagged as soon as they're confirmed during testing via direct communication with your team, ahead of the final report. This lets remediation start mid-engagement rather than waiting until delivery.
Contact Us
Find Out More About Our Web Application Penetration Testing
Ready to put your web application security to the test? Our team are on hand to provide you with the information you need. Please fill out the form below and one of our team will be in touch shortly to discuss your requirements.
Web Application Insights
The Latest Insights From The Pentest Team
Our consultants don’t just test, they research and publish. Here’s what they’ve been writing about.
