Cybersecurity Services
Web Application Security
Authenticated testing of every role, every workflow and every endpoint in your web applications, including the access-control and business-logic flaws that no scanner has a signature for.
- Every role
- Cross-Tested Against Every Other Role
- OWASP Top 10
- Plus Logic Flaws No Signature Covers
- 4–12 hrs
- Full Authenticated Application Assessment
- App Types
- SSR, SPA, Multi-Tenant SaaS
- Auth Support
- Session, JWT, OAuth, SSO, MFA
- Role Testing
- Full Cross-Role Matrix
- Logic Flaws
- Workflow, Pricing, Tenancy
- Standards
- OWASP Top 10 & WSTG
Problem
- The Issue
- Impact
Every role authenticated and held for the entire run
Cross-role and cross-tenant access control proven, not assumed
Workflows walked and abused, not just crawled
Most web application risk lives behind the login
Unauthenticated scanning covers the smallest and least interesting part of a modern application.
AIPTx tests it the way an attacker with an account does: authenticating as every role you supply, holding those sessions across the whole run, and systematically pointing each role at the others' data and actions.
Why Test
- Key Benefits
The problem: application testing keeps missing things
Each of these is a structural blind spot rather than an oversight; the tooling most teams rely on cannot see them by design.
Whether user A should be able to read record 4471 is a question about your business rules, not a pattern in a response, and it is the most exploited flaw in web applications.
- Scanners cannot hold a sessionMost tools either fail the real login flow outright or drop the session partway through the crawl. Everything behind authentication then goes untested, while the report still presents itself as a completed scan of the application.
- Access control has no signatureWhether one account may read another account's record is a property of your authorisation rules, not a pattern in a response body. Tools that work by matching signatures have nothing to match against, so broken access control passes straight through them.
- Tenant isolation stops at the UIThe interface hides other tenants' data, so separation looks intact from the browser. The API behind it frequently accepts a tampered tenant or workspace identifier and returns the record anyway, because nothing re-checks the boundary at that layer.
- Logic abuse looks like valid trafficSkipping a checkout step, replaying a request or submitting a negative quantity produces perfectly well-formed HTTP that no rule flags. The request is legitimate at the protocol level and wrong at the business level, and that gap is where pattern-based testing has nothing to say.
- Client-rendered routes stay undiscoveredSingle-page applications register routes and API calls at runtime, so a crawler that only follows links in server-rendered markup never reaches them. Whole areas of the application are simply absent from the run, and nothing in the output reports the gap.
- Releases outpace manual reviewAn application that ships weekly changes faster than a hand-run review cycle can assess it. By the time the findings are written up, the authorisation checks and workflows they examined have already been refactored several times over.
Key Benefits
Why authenticated application testing is a must for every business
Coverage Where Risk Lives
Multi-role testing reaches the workflows and data unauthenticated scanning never touches.
Proof, Not Suspicion
Each access-control finding names the two accounts, the request and the data that came back.
Regressions Caught Per Release
A refactor that drops a permission check is found by the run after the deploy, not by a customer.
Logic-Aware Testing
Pricing, workflow and tenancy abuse tested continuously, not once a year by hand.
Fixes Written For Your Stack
Remediation expressed in the framework the application actually uses, ready to apply.
App And API In One View
The browser layer and the API behind it tested together, the only way spanning flaws show up.
How It Works
- Approach
- Workflow
How AIPTx tests a web application
The run is structured around roles and workflows rather than URLs, which is what makes access-control and logic testing possible at all.
- 01
Authenticate Every Role
Real login flows including MFA and SSO, with sessions held and refreshed for the whole run.
- 02
Map Per Role
Routes, forms, API calls and parameters recorded separately per role; the differences are the test plan.
- 03
Cross-Test The Matrix
Every role pointed at every other role's resources: horizontal, vertical and cross-tenant.
- 04
Exploit & Abuse
Injection, XSS, SSRF, uploads and races, plus workflows skipped, reordered, tampered and replayed.
- 05
Prove Impact & Fix
Escalate to show what it reaches, ship a framework-specific patch, then retest automatically.
| Application Layer | What We Assess |
|---|---|
| Access Control | Role Matrix, IDOR, Forced Browsing, Object-Level Checks |
| Multi-Tenancy | Cross-Tenant Read & Write, Exports, Shared Cache & Search |
| Injection & Execution | SQLi, NoSQLi, SSTI, XXE, Command Injection, Deserialisation |
| Client-Side | DOM XSS, Prototype Pollution, postMessage, Bundle Secrets |
| Auth & Session | Reset Abuse, MFA Bypass, Fixation, Token Lifetime & Revocation |
| Business Logic | Price Tampering, Step Skipping, Quota Evasion, Race Conditions |
What We Cover
- Scope
What gets tested
Full OWASP Top 10 coverage is the baseline. The classes below are where the assessment earns its keep.
Broken Access Control & IDOR
Horizontal, vertical and object-level authorisation, plus forced browsing to routes the UI never links.
Multi-Tenant Isolation
Tenant tampering, cross-workspace reads and writes, cache and index leakage, export filtering.
Injection & Code Execution
SQL, NoSQL, command, template and LDAP injection, XXE and insecure deserialisation, each proven.
XSS & Client-Side Flaws
Reflected, stored and DOM XSS in a real browser, prototype pollution, postMessage, bundle secrets.
Authentication & Sessions
Reset and recovery abuse, MFA bypass paths, fixation, token lifetime, revocation and impersonation.
Uploads & Payment Flows
Type and traversal bypass, executable paths, webhook forgery, refund abuse and PII exposure.
Proven Impact
- Outcomes
What changes for the application team
Web application security stops being an annual event that produces a PDF and becomes a check that runs with the release.
- Behind login
- Coverage where the risk actually is
- Proven
- Every access-control finding evidenced
- Per release
- Authorisation regressions caught early
- Logic-aware
- Flaws automation usually cannot reach
- Framework-fit
- Fixes written for your actual stack
- One report
- Application and API in the same view
Where It Fits
- Use Cases
Where authenticated application testing changes the outcome
Across industries. Across environments. For every modern business.
B2B SaaS
Prove tenant isolation before an enterprise security review instead of asserting it.
Fintech
Attack transfers, refunds and promotional credit where a logic flaw is financial loss.
Healthcare
Verify record-level access rules per role pair across the UI, API and export paths.
E-commerce
Close coupon abuse and inventory races before peak, with rate limits validated under load.
Financial Services
Test customer portals and admin consoles against every role they expose.
Government & Public Sector
Evidence authorisation and data-separation requirements with per-role proof.
FAQ
Web application security questions
How does authenticated testing work in practice?
You supply credentials, a session token or an SSO service account for each role you want covered. The agent completes the real login flow (including MFA where you provide a shared secret or a bypass account), maintains the session for the whole run, and re-authenticates when it expires. Roles are then cross-tested against each other.
Can it test single-page applications?
Yes. The crawler renders the application in a real browser, so client-side routes, dynamically registered endpoints and DOM-based flaws are all in scope. JavaScript bundles are also parsed statically to recover API paths, feature flags and role logic the UI never navigates to.
How do you find business-logic flaws automatically?
By reasoning about intent rather than matching patterns. The agent builds a model of what the application does, then constructs abuse cases against it: skip a step, reorder two, submit a negative quantity, replay a request, run two concurrently. Each is executed, and only the ones that succeed are reported.
Will testing pollute our application data?
The agent creates its own test records where it can and prefers reads over writes when proving access. Writes are limited to scratch paths and clearly labelled test data, destructive actions are disabled by default, and you can mark endpoints read-only or out of scope entirely.
Does this replace a DAST tool?
For most teams, yes. It covers the same technical classes a DAST scanner does, then adds what DAST structurally cannot: authenticated multi-role coverage, access-control and tenant isolation testing, business-logic abuse, and validated exploitation instead of pattern matching.
Does a WAF in front of the application change the results?
It changes what gets through, which is worth knowing either way. Findings are reported with the WAF in the path, so what you see is what an attacker on the internet can actually reach. Where you also want the underlying defect, testing can run against an origin allowlist as well, and the difference between the two runs is the honest measure of what the WAF is buying you.
Test your application the way an attacker with an account would
Give AIPTx credentials for two roles and it will tell you, with evidence, exactly what one can reach that belongs to the other, across the UI, the API and every workflow in between.
Explore other services
AI Penetration Testing
Simulate real-world attacks to test your defences.
API Security
Test REST, GraphQL and gRPC the way they are attacked.
Vulnerability Assessment
Find, rank and fix weaknesses across the whole estate.
Attack Chain Analysis
How access-control and logic flaws chain together into a single proven path.