RINP // CYBERSECURITY SERVICES
Red in Pulse · Offensive Security Partner
Prove.Prioritize.Verify.
With our expert offensive security team, we evaluate your organization's cybersecurity priorities from an attacker's perspective. We rank the technical findings we verify through controlled testing by business impact and turn them into an actionable remediation plan. After findings are closed, we retest; we deliver the results in clear language that leadership and technical teams can use together.
Where is your security agenda concentrated?
The right service is determined by the security question that needs solving before your organization type. Below you can see the five starting areas we encounter most often.
Digital product teams that release frequently
Do the critical business workflows in the new release contain an exploitable security finding, and which findings should be closed before release?
Explore this segment
Organizations seeking permission visibility across cloud assets
Which data and assets do the permission chains in the cloud environment grant access to, and what business risk do misconfigurations create?
Explore this segment
Organizations that want to measure employee awareness
Do employees notice a suspicious attempt, report it through the correct channel, and enable the organization to initiate its response process in time?
Explore this segment
Organizations that must provide technical assurance to their customers
Can the measures taken be demonstrated in customer security reviews with current test results and verified findings?
Explore this segmentIf your agenda lies in a different area
You can review all nine segments together with their security priority and recommended starting service.
Explore all segmentsOffensive security services tailored to your need
Each service is designed to answer a specific security question. We determine the scope, expected output, and test cadence together, according to your need.
Application and release cadence
01 / 05Infrastructure, cloud, and perimeter
02 / 05Human layer
03 / 05Resilience and attack path
04 / 05Artificial intelligence
05 / 05Four core outputs in every engagement
We deliver test results in a shared output layout that technical teams can apply and decision-makers can evaluate.
Reproducible technical finding
We verify each finding through manual testing, a safe PoC, and technical evidence. The reproduction steps, affected assets, and observed result are contained within the same record.
Risk explained through business impact
We evaluate the technical finding through the relevant business workflow, the affected data, and the possible attack outcome. This gives the risk a context that can be used in leadership decisions.
Actionable remediation priority
We order findings by business impact, likelihood of exploitation, and the chain they form with other findings. Technical teams can see which issue to address first through this ordering.
Remediation verification through retesting
After the customer team closes the finding, we retest the relevant scenario. We verify with technical evidence that the applied control is effective and that the same attack path cannot be reestablished.
// FROM TECHNICAL FINDING TO DECISION
We offer a working system that turns a technical finding into an actionable decision.
Workflow from scope to retest
We run every engagement through a controlled flow that includes authorization, testing, reporting, and retesting steps. We determine the depth and cadence of testing together, according to the service scope.
Authorization and scope
Before starting, we clarify the assets to be tested, written authorization, working hours, stop conditions, and the communication line.
Reconnaissance and attack surface
By examining critical business workflows, asset relationships, permission boundaries, and data paths, we derive the attack surface to be tested.
Manual testing and technical validation
We complement automated checks with manual review and verify exploitable findings with a safe PoC and reproduction steps.
Risk rating and reporting
We prioritize findings together with business impact and exploitability; we prepare the executive summary and the technical report on the same risk picture.
Dual-layer delivery and retesting
We deliver the results at appropriate levels of detail for leadership and the technical team, and we retest the closed findings to verify the result.
How an engagement progresses from scope to outcome
This anonymized sample shows how the scope was handled in an application security penetration test, how the findings were verified, and how the retest concluded.
Anonymized samplePT-1multi-tenant SaaS
In a multi-tenant SaaS application, can one customer's data be accessed from another customer account?
The customer wanted the data and authorization boundaries between customer accounts tested for the new sharing feature. By limiting the scope to the relevant API endpoints, user roles, and critical sharing flows, we prepared a test plan that would not affect production.
In manual authorization testing, we verified that records belonging to another customer could be accessed from one customer account. We documented the BOLA and BFLA findings with a safe PoC, request and response samples, affected roles, and reproduction steps.
We ordered the findings by business impact and delivered them with a technical report and an executive summary. After the customer team updated the authorization controls, we retested the same scenarios and verified that the critical findings had been closed.
The outcomes the engagement provided
- The release decision was supported by independent penetration test results.
- The critical authorization findings were closed before release and retested.
- Leadership and technical teams proceeded from the same risk and remediation record.
Practical notes from offensive security
We address the technical questions we encounter often, the scope differences between services, and how test results should be evaluated, with practical examples.
- Article · PT-1
API authorization boundary testing: evidence, not a checklist
It explains why BOLA and BFLA findings require manual testing where the automated scanner cannot see.
- Article · PT-4
"Who got fooled?" is the wrong question. The right one is: did the alarm sound?
It shows that, beyond the click rate, what should really be measured is the reflex to notice and report and the time until reporting.
- Article · RT
A critical asset was reached: does the SOC see the chain?
It explains where the detection gap table and the control that breaks the chain come into play.
Continue exploring here
- Approach
Our approach from testing to reverification
You can explore how we determine scope, which controls we run tests with, and how we present results to leadership and technical teams.
- Services Center
Determine the service suited to your need
You can compare the scopes of the services, the security questions they answer, and the core outputs they produce, all in one center.
- Segment and Priority Center
Start from your security priority
By selecting the security question on your organization's agenda, you can reach the relevant segment, recommended services, and preparation steps.
// DISCOVERY CALL
Let's clarify the scope of the first engagement together
Let's talk about your security agenda, your critical assets, and the outputs you expect. In a discovery call, we can determine the right service, the starting scope, and the working cadence together.