Web Application Penetration Testing
CREST-accredited web application penetration testing, manual depth beyond automated scanning, mapped to OWASP WSTG and the OWASP Top 10.
Web applications are the front door of the modern enterprise, and the most consistently attacked layer. Almost every reported breach of the last decade has had a web application step in the chain. Manual web penetration testing is what catches the categories of flaw that scanners cannot.
Vantage Point web application engagements combine automated scanning to cover breadth with extensive manual testing for the business-logic flaws, authorisation issues, and chained vulnerabilities that scanners cannot reliably surface. Every engagement follows the OWASP WSTG methodology, mapped to the OWASP Top 10 and ASVS where verification-level evidence is required.
Findings are reproduced with request/response captures, payloads, and screenshots, built so engineering can fix them without re-discovering them, and so audit can verify them without re-testing them.
What's at stake.
Web is where breaches actually start
Year over year, web application vulnerabilities feature in the largest single share of public breach reports. Network controls cannot compensate for an exposed application endpoint.
Scanners do not find authorisation flaws
IDOR, broken access control, and multi-role abuse are the most common high-impact findings in real engagements. None of them are reliably found by automated tools.
PCI DSS and ASVS evidence is increasingly expected
Regulators, banks, and large enterprise customers ask for OWASP-aligned web testing evidence as part of vendor onboarding and audit cycles.
What we test.
Common vulnerability classes
Coverage of the OWASP Top 10 and the broader WSTG procedure set.
- SQL, NoSQL, command, and template injection
- Cross-site scripting (XSS), stored, reflected, DOM
- CSRF and SSRF
- XML external entity (XXE)
- Insecure deserialisation
- Server-side request forgery
Logic, access & configuration
The categories most engagements actually deliver value on, and where manual testing is decisive.
- Authentication and session management
- Authorisation, role enforcement, and IDOR
- Business logic and workflow abuse
- Input validation and output encoding
- Crypto and data-at-rest handling
- Configuration management
The flaws engagements like this consistently surface.
Drawn from common categories our consultants surface across engagements of this type. Severity and prevalence vary by environment and maturity.
Broken access control
IDOR on tenant-scoped resources, missing authorisation on internal API endpoints reached from the front-end, admin functions accessible to standard users by URL manipulation.
Authentication weaknesses
Username enumeration via response timing or error messages, insecure password reset, predictable session tokens, MFA bypass on legacy flows.
Injection
SQL injection on legacy reporting endpoints, SSRF in URL-fetching features reaching cloud metadata, server-side template injection in admin UIs.
XSS
Stored XSS in user-content fields, DOM-based XSS in client-side routing, reflected XSS reachable via document.location.
Sensitive data exposure
PII in error messages, secrets in JavaScript bundles, internal hostnames leaking in HTTP responses, full account objects returned to UIs that need a name only.
Misconfigured security headers / cookies
Missing HSTS, weak CSP, cookies without HttpOnly or Secure, SameSite still set to None on session cookies.
A structured, intelligence-led path through every engagement.
Every engagement follows the same disciplined path through the Velocity platform, so quality, traceability, and reporting are consistent across teams.
Scoping
Define assets, environments, Rules of Engagement, and acceptance criteria with the technical and security stakeholders.
Execution
Manual and tool-assisted testing by CREST-accredited consultants, with evidence captured at each step.
Validation
Every finding is reproduced, risk-rated under CVSS, and confirmed by a second consultant before reporting.
Reporting
Cryptographically signed reports with test-case traceability, severity ratings, reproduction steps, and remediation guidance.
Debrief & Retest
Stakeholder walk-through of findings, prioritisation support, and a retest cycle on remediated issues.
Mapped to recognised baselines.
Common buyer questions.
Do you provide test accounts, or do we? +
Typically you. We test under representative roles, at minimum standard user and administrator, so authorisation enforcement can be properly evaluated.
Will scanning affect application performance? +
We tune scan intensity to your environment. For sensitive production systems we throttle and exclude known-fragile endpoints; for staging we are more aggressive.
Do you cover GraphQL and modern API patterns? +
Yes. GraphQL, gRPC, and message-driven backends have specific test cases, including introspection, depth-limit bypass, and broken object-level authorisation.
How is this different from your API penetration testing service? +
Web testing focuses on the browser-facing application; API testing focuses on the underlying service contract. Many engagements scope both together because real-world attack chains span the two.
Test Your Defences Against Adversarial Expertise
Talk to a CREST-accredited consultant about your next penetration testing engagement.