Some applications need more than a one-shot pentest. Web Application Testing is a deeper, longer engagement that combines manual penetration testing with code review and security architecture analysis — for the apps where 'mostly secure' isn't good enough.
What is Web Application Testing?
Web Application Testing is a comprehensive security assessment of a single critical web application — combining manual penetration testing, targeted source code review, security architecture analysis, and threat modeling into one focused engagement.
This is the engagement for applications where a breach would be catastrophic — the customer-facing payment processor, the SaaS product holding regulated data, the patient portal, the trading platform. When “mostly secure” isn’t sufficient, this is what gets you to “actually defensible.”
Why a comprehensive engagement instead of just a pentest?
A traditional black-box pentest finds what an attacker would find given their level of access and time budget. That’s valuable, but it has inherent blind spots:
- Code paths that aren’t reachable in a black-box test (e.g., admin functionality, edge-case workflows, race conditions)
- Architecture-level flaws that don’t manifest as a single finding but as a pattern across the codebase
- Third-party dependencies with vulnerabilities that may or may not be exploitable in your specific implementation
- Business logic issues that require understanding the intended workflow to recognize as flaws
Web Application Testing closes those gaps. The combination of black-box attack + grey-box code review + architecture analysis catches issues no single approach would find.
CyberBullet’s methodology
1. Discovery & Threat Modeling
We start with architecture review and threat modeling — understanding the application’s data flows, trust boundaries, user roles, and the attacker-relevant assets it handles. The threat model drives the engagement plan.
2. Source Code Review (Targeted)
We review the high-risk components in detail: authentication and session management, authorization decisions, payment processing, data access layers, cryptographic operations, and any code that handles untrusted input. This is targeted code review, not a full audit — the goal is finding the issues that pentest can’t see.
3. Manual Penetration Testing
Hands-on attack simulation across all user roles — anonymous, regular user, premium tier, admin. We test the OWASP Top 10, business logic flaws, authentication chains, API security, and any architecture-specific concerns surfaced during the threat model.
4. Third-Party Dependency Audit
We map every third-party library and component, identify known vulnerabilities (with version-specific exploitability analysis — not just “this CVE applies”), and flag dependencies that introduce architectural risk independent of CVEs.
5. Findings Synthesis & Reporting
The report combines findings from all three streams (pentest, code review, architecture review) into one prioritized remediation roadmap. Each finding gets root-cause analysis: not just “fix this line” but “here’s the pattern in your codebase that produced this issue.”
6. Re-Test & Validation
After remediation, we re-test every finding within 90 days at no additional cost — confirming the fix actually closed the issue (and didn’t introduce new ones).
Frameworks we map findings to
- OWASP Top 10 + OWASP API Security Top 10 + OWASP ASVS L2/L3
- NIST SP 800-218 (Secure Software Development Framework)
- PCI DSS 4.0 Requirements 6 and 11
- SOC 2 CC8.1 — secure development practices
- HIPAA Security Rule §164.308(a)(1) — risk management
- MITRE ATT&CK application-layer techniques
Who this is for
- SaaS companies with multi-tenant data and high blast radius from any single breach
- Fintech and healthcare applications with regulated data and significant compliance obligations
- Pre-Series-B startups preparing for first-customer security reviews from enterprise buyers
- Applications post-incident where comprehensive validation is needed before declaring the issue resolved
- Critical infrastructure applications where black-box testing alone doesn’t justify the risk
Our methodology
Every engagement runs through the same six phases. Manual validation isn't a finishing step — it's the product.
Scope & Authorize
We define the engagement boundary precisely before testing starts — in-scope assets, out-of-bounds targets, testing windows, and emergency-stop procedures.
- Written authorization letters exchanged before any packet leaves our infrastructure
- Signal / Slack channel established for real-time findings during the engagement
- Explicit rules of engagement reviewed with legal, IT, and business stakeholders
Passive Reconnaissance
Before a single packet touches your infrastructure, we map your external footprint using public sources only — DNS, CT logs, code repos, internet-wide scan data.
- Typically discovers 15-30% more attack surface than the client originally provided
- Certificate transparency, BGP, and GitHub exposure reporting
- OSINT profile for social engineering vectors if in scope
Active Discovery
We enumerate live services across in-scope assets — ports, software versions, auth mechanisms, and protocol configurations — correlated against current vuln data.
- Hand-tuned scanning profiles — not the default Nessus run
- Protocol-level inspection for TLS, SSH, SMB, Kerberos, LDAP
- Service fingerprinting to ground truth before any exploitation
Manual Validation
Every potential issue is validated by hand before it makes the report. No CVE-dumping. No false positives. This is what separates the engagement from a scan.
- Manual exploitation attempts for any finding of High severity or above
- Business-logic testing on top of the technical layer
- Chained vulnerabilities analyzed as a single attack path
Exploitation & Impact
For confirmed vulnerabilities with attacker value, we attempt exploitation to prove impact — not just that a CVE applies, but what it gets you.
- Proof-of-exploit captured for every confirmed critical finding
- Pivot paths mapped to the actual crown-jewel data
- Interim notification inside 24 hours for anything critical
Report & Remediate
Every finding is paired with severity rated on real exploitability, reproducible proof-of-exploit, and remediation guidance your team can ship this sprint.
- Executive summary and technical deep-dive in a single report
- Findings mapped to CIS, NIST CSF, and relevant compliance families
- Retest included — we confirm the fix before we close the finding
What you walk away with
Frameworks we map to
Findings ship mapped to the control families your regulators and auditors actually check. Governance clients use these crosswalks directly in their program documentation.
- CIS Controls v8
- NIST CSF 2.0 / 800-53
- PCI DSS 4.0
- HIPAA Security Rule
- SOC 2 Type II
- OWASP ASVS
Questions we get asked
How is this different from your standard application pentest?
A standard pentest is a hands-on attack simulation. Web Application Testing is broader and deeper: we add targeted code review (so we can find issues in code paths that aren't reachable in a black-box test), architecture review (to find design-level flaws that no individual finding would surface), and a full threat model. This is the engagement for applications where the cost of a breach justifies a more comprehensive look.
Do we need to give you our source code?
For Web Application Testing, yes — at least for the high-risk components (authentication, session management, payment processing, data access logic). The combination of pentest + code review finds issues that neither would alone. Standard NDAs and secure code transfer protocols apply; we never retain source after engagement close.
How long does this engagement take?
Typically 3-5 weeks for a mid-size application: a week of architecture review and threat modeling, 1-2 weeks of pentest, 1-2 weeks of code review, and a week of reporting. Larger or more complex applications scale up; we'll provide a fixed quote during scoping.
What if you find a critical issue mid-engagement?
We notify you within 24 hours through the agreed channel — usually a dedicated Slack or Signal channel established at kickoff. Critical findings get an interim writeup so your team can start remediation before the engagement ends, not after.
Can you help us build the security testing into our SDLC?
Yes — that's often a follow-on engagement. We can help you integrate static analysis, design security review checkpoints into your SDLC, and train your engineering team on what to look for. The Web Application Testing engagement typically surfaces process gaps that we can address in a focused advisory follow-up.