RINP // CYBERSECURITY SERVICES
Penetration Test · Application Security
Across web, API, and mobile applications, we validate critical business workflows through controlled testing.
We test web, API, and mobile applications from an offensive security perspective. We verify authentication, authorization, and business-logic findings, then prioritize the results by business impact. We deliver an executive summary, a technical report, and a remediation plan together.
- Critical user workflows are verified through manual testing and safe PoC.
- Authentication, authorization, tenant boundaries, and business logic are assessed together.
- Remediation priority brings technical severity and business impact into a single order.
3 components
- 01
Web Application
Browser-based critical flows
- 02
API Surface
REST / GraphQL / gRPC endpoints
- 03
Mobile Client
Android / iOS binary (APK / IPA)
Web · API · Mobile · attacker's eye
What this service is, and is not
- It tests the critical workflows in web, API, and mobile applications from an attacker's perspective, under controlled conditions.
- It documents verified technical findings with safe PoC and reproduction steps.
- It enables management and technical teams to build a remediation plan from the same risk picture.
- Not a rhythm-based continuous-validation program like Continuous Penetration Testing.
- Not the attack-path and detection-gap scenario of a Modular Red Team simulation.
- Not an automated-scanner output alone; it includes manual validation and a safe PoC.
Scope and boundaries
- Web, API and mobile application surface components
- Authentication, authorization and tenant separation
- Business logic and critical-flow breaks
- Proven exploit validation and safe PoC production
- Fix-first prioritization (CVSS + EPSS + business impact)
- Fix validation / retest when needed
- DoS / destructive stress and load testing
- Social engineering and human-layer testing (this is the Social Engineering Simulation line)
- Physical testing and physical-access simulation
- Full-scope source-code review
- Direct attack on third-party services
- Written authorization and approved rules of engagement (RoE) are in place.
- The test window and technical contact are agreed in advance.
- For the mobile component, the binary (APK / IPA) is provided.
- A short brief covering purpose, critical assets and feared scenarios
- Web URL inventory, API base, binary and role-based test accounts
- An architecture diagram or system-flow summary
- A critical-integration list and a technical contact for the test
Testing is carried out with written authorization, an approved scope, stop conditions, and an escalation channel.
How we work: five steps from scoping to retest
Scope & critical-flow clarification
It is clarified which components (Web, API, Mobile) are tested and to what extent, which critical flows take priority, and the rules of engagement are approved.
Manual discovery & surface mapping
The target surface is examined with an attacker's eye; role-based flows, authority boundaries and business logic are mapped.
Flow-based testing & exploit validation
We run manual tests on critical user workflows and verify exploitable findings with a safe PoC that preserves production integrity.
Fix-first backlog production
We assess the findings we have verified together with business impact, CVSS, and EPSS data, and prepare an executive summary, a technical report, and a remediation plan.
Post-remediation retest
After the client remediates selected findings, we run a retest and report that the finding has been technically resolved.
What we deliver
Executive summary
- Risk picture: summarizes the critical findings, business impact, and remediation order.
- Retest result: shows the status of the finding after the client's remediation.
Technical report and remediation plan
- Technical report: covers the finding's impact, reproduction steps, and the recommended control.
- Safe PoC: shows the steps required to reproduce the critical finding in a controlled environment.
- Remediation plan: ranks the findings by business impact and exploitability.
Optional outputs
- Re-test note: revalidation summary of selected findings (add-on).
- API scope/inventory summary and authentication schema; a MASVS coverage matrix for mobile.
Management sees which risk to address first. The technical team follows how the finding was reproduced and which control will remediate it.
Decision profile
- Duration
- Scope-proportional · 5–15 business days
- Depth
- Critical-flow focused
- Delivery
- Management + technical
- Scope
- Web · API · Mobile components
- Best for
- New release / critical flow / before a customer review
Which is the right start, and when?
These three services do not solve the same problem. Starting without knowing the difference wastes time and budget chasing the wrong evidence object.
| Criterion | ÖnerilenApplication Security Penetration Test | Continuous Penetration Testing | Modular Red Team Simulation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decision question | Does the critical flow truly break in the new release? | Can we see closure regularly in our release rhythm? | Does the attacker advance to the crown jewels, and does the defense see it? |
| Primary evidence object | Critical-flow validation + fix-first backlog | Rhythm, revalidation, measurable closure | Attack path, detection gap, the control that breaks the chain |
| Ideal trigger | New release; before a customer review; depth at a single point | Continuous release tempo; a need for at least 3 months of rhythm | Crown-jewel resilience; the detection-gap question |
| Wrong match | Trying to meet a rhythm need with a one-off application security test | Holding back single-point deep validation for a continuous-pentest rhythm | Inflating a limited exposure test into a Red Team simulation |
One example of decision clarity
Anon case · PT-1 · multi-tenant SaaS
New sharing layer: is the tenant boundary protected by evidence?
A SaaS provider gave us a scope to test its web and API workflows before releasing a new authorization model. We agreed on written authorization, test accounts, and stop conditions.
Our manual testing surfaced two critical tenant-isolation findings. We verified each finding with a safe PoC and reproduction steps.
We delivered the executive summary, the technical report, and a remediation plan ranked by business impact. After the client remediated the findings, our retest confirmed that both findings had been resolved.
What this case produced
- The release decision was based on verified application findings.
- Critical findings were remediated before release.
- The remediation status was confirmed by retest.
Let's clarify the scope together
Through this short form, we clarify the web, API, and mobile components, user roles, critical business workflows, and the test environment.
Frequently asked questions
Application Security Penetration Testing performs deep testing on a specific release or scope. Continuous Penetration Testing, by contrast, tests the same surface regularly in line with your release cadence and tracks remediation status periodically.
A retest is scheduled once the client has remediated the finding. The same steps are applied again, and the finding's resolution is verified technically.
Web, API, and mobile surfaces can be assessed both externally and internally with role-based test accounts. The test environment and access model are determined during the scoping discussion.
The standard scope covers testing against the running application. If a full source code review is needed, a separate scope and proposal are prepared.
A safe PoC is prepared for critical and high-severity findings. The PoC shows the reproduction steps in a way that preserves production integrity.
Remediation priority is determined by assessing CVSS, EPSS, exploitability, and business impact together. The result is turned into a plan with a clear owner and order.
Related services
This service may not fully meet your pressure. Under a different pressure, three neighboring services may be the right start.
Continuous Penetration Testing
If the need is rhythm-based validation, a fix-verify cycle and monthly closure visibility, Continuous Penetration Testing is the right start.
PT-3Cloud Security Penetration Test
If the focus is the cloud authority chain, the data-access path and IAM risk, the Cloud Security Penetration Test is the right start.
PT-4Social Engineering Simulation
If the focus is employee behavior, reporting reflex and control effectiveness, the Social Engineering Simulation is the right start.
// PT-1 · DISCOVERY
Let's clarify the critical application workflows and the initial test scope together.
In the discovery call, we define the components, user roles, test window, and expected report scope together.