XARMOURED
Loading the next view…
Loading the next view…
A practical, scoped process that makes findings actionable rather than theatrical.
Define assets, access, exclusions, testing windows and rules of engagement. Establish how urgent findings will be communicated before any testing begins.
Next: mapBefore testing, agree on ownership, permitted techniques, exclusions, access, environments, windows and emergency contacts. Testing stays within those rules. Automated tools assist exploration; manual investigation establishes the context and validates exploitability.
We begin with the assets, applications, environments, access levels, testing dates and business goals. Rules of engagement explicitly identify what is permitted, prohibited, and who to contact if an issue emerges. No testing begins before written authorization.
We identify reachable functionality, roles, objects, sensitive workflows and trust boundaries. For APIs this includes object ownership, function authorization and unusual state transitions. For Android, we include the client, its transport behavior and the backend.
Guided by relevant OWASP Web Security Testing Guide, API Security Top 10 and Mobile Application Security Testing Guide concepts, we test the assumptions behind access decisions, user input and critical flows. Automation supplements coverage; it never replaces human validation.
Potential issues are confirmed within agreed guardrails. We capture reproducible evidence and realistic impact while minimizing unnecessary exposure of customer information. We do not chase destructive proof for its own sake.
You receive an executive summary, finding descriptions, preconditions, reproduction guidance, risk reasoning and remediation steps. We make it clear where a risk was validated versus where testing was constrained.
After engineering changes, a separate retest checks whether the same failure path has been closed. Retesting scope, window and commercial terms are agreed in advance.
A penetration test is a time-bounded evaluation, not a guarantee of security or a compliance certificate. Scope, environment realism, access levels and the test window affect what can be concluded.
Define assets, access, exclusions, testing windows and rules of engagement. Establish how urgent findings will be communicated before any testing begins.
Trace entry points, identities, data flows and trust relationships. Identify which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Combine manual exploration with focused tooling. Test authentication, authorization, business logic and the paths between components.
Reproduce exploitable behavior within the agreed scope. Chain findings where appropriate and capture the minimum evidence needed to explain the risk.
Connect technical detail to business impact. Supply reproducible steps, contextual severity and engineering-ready remediation.
Discuss fixes with your engineers. Separate immediate containment from the underlying design or implementation change.
Repeat the original test against the fix, check related behavior within scope and record resolved, partial or remaining risk.
Use a documented CVSS vector alongside exploit preconditions, asset sensitivity and demonstrated impact. A technical score supports prioritization; it does not replace the engineering and business context.
Agree on evidence storage, transfer and retention before testing. Minimize sensitive data in reproduction artifacts, redact secrets and explain coverage limitations in the final report.
Where authorized, investigate how smaller weaknesses combine into a meaningful attack path. Stop at the agreed proof point, communicate urgent risk and preserve reproducibility.
Record the tested version, original test, observed behavior and residual limitations. Distinguish resolved findings from partial fixes and items not retested.
Frameworks inform coverage where applicable. Referencing a framework does not imply certification or endorsement.