Map assets and outcomes
Define applications, APIs, roles, environments, exclusions, deadline, and why the evidence is needed.
Web application & API penetration testing
Web application & API penetration testing that proves the real exploit path.
Test authentication, authorization, tenant isolation, business logic, and integration trust before an enterprise deal, security review, or critical release. Get verified findings, business impact, developer-ready fixes, and a re-test.
- NDA before access
- Written authorization
- Manual validation
- One re-test included
Cross-tenant invoice access
A low-privilege user can read an invoice owned by a different controlled test tenant.
- Impact reproduced safely
- Raw request and response included
- Code-level remediation guidance
Authorization firstSigned scope, test accounts, stop conditions
AI-assisted coverageMore test hypotheses, with every result human-validated
Evidence over volumeOnly reproducible, manually verified findings
Fixes through closureWalkthrough, remediation support, bounded re-test
Scope Lab · useful before a sales call
Start with the decision the test has to support.
Choose the trigger to preview the planning path, then build a forwardable draft brief without sharing contact details or sensitive system information.
Turn a buyer request into an evidence plan.
Define the product boundary, report age, roles, tenant paths, and evidence format before procurement turns urgency into an underscoped test.
- Web + API boundary
- Role and tenant isolation
- Buyer-ready evidence
RequestBoundaryEvidenceDecision
Build the full draft scope
Start here · flagship engagement
See coverage, scope, and exclusions
Web & API Pentest Sprint
A tightly scoped assessment for one customer-facing application and its APIs. Built for product teams that need useful engineering evidence and a clear answer to “what can an attacker actually do?”
Testing focus
- Authentication and session handling
- Authorization, roles, and tenant isolation
- Business logic and abuse cases
- API object, function, and property access
- Injection, browser, and server-side flaws
Included outputs
- Critical alerts during testing
- Executive and technical report
- Reproduction evidence for every finding
- Developer remediation walkthrough
- One bounded re-test and closure update
The deliverable
A report your board can scan and your developers can fix.
No unexplained scanner output. Every finding connects technical evidence to realistic business impact and a practical remediation path.
- 01Decision-ready summaryRisk themes, likely business impact, and a prioritized action plan.
- 02Developer-ready findingsPrerequisites, exact reproduction, raw evidence, affected assets, and fix guidance.
- 03Closure evidenceRemediation walkthrough, one scoped re-test, and an updated finding status.
BalhenceSECURITY ASSESSMENT / SAMPLE
Web & API Penetration Test
Executive risk overview and technical finding register.
8roles mapped
3risk themes
1re-test included
Cross-tenant invoice accessHIGH
Weak recovery token lifecycleMEDIUM
Verbose API error responseLOW
Safe by design
A controlled path from scope to closure.
You always know what is being tested, what happens next, and who gets called if risk appears.
Sign NDA and rules
Agree authorization, test windows, rate limits, data handling, stop conditions, and escalation contacts.
Probe, chain, validate
Automation supports coverage; manual testing validates exploitability, business logic, and impact.
Report, fix, re-test
Review priorities with engineering, answer remediation questions, then verify agreed fixes.
AI-native VAPT, human accountability
AI widens the search. A human proves the exploit.
Balhence uses approved AI assistance to turn the signed scope, architecture, API documentation, and observed behavior into more test hypotheses. AI does not make a candidate finding true. Every live action, exploit chain, severity decision, report, and re-test status remains under human control.
Structure the authorized boundary.
Connect supplied applications, endpoints, roles, tenants, data classes, workflows, and exclusions without adding targets or changing the signed scope.
Generate more useful hypotheses.
Cross-reference approved reconnaissance and product context to challenge authentication, authorization, business logic, and integration trust.
Quality-check the record.
Organize redacted evidence, question missing prerequisites, and draft remediation options while raw requests and responses remain the source of truth.
Keep judgment with the tester.
A human executes and reproduces the path, establishes realistic impact, assigns severity, approves the report, and verifies the re-test outcome.
Operating guardrail
AI output is treated as an untrusted lead, never as evidence. No model autonomously tests production, expands scope, or sends live requests. Client secrets, credentials, customer records, source code, and unredacted vulnerability evidence are not sent to a public AI service unless the client explicitly approves the provider, purpose, and processing terms.
Read the full AI-native VAPT operating model
External evidence, not Balhence performance claims
How AI is changing VAPT and vulnerability research
These figures describe researcher surveys and platform results. They do not mean Balhence finds a stated percentage more vulnerabilities or completes a pentest a stated percentage faster.
use AI to speed testing and repetitive work
HackerOne reported this result from its 2025 survey of active platform researchers. It measures self-reported use, not a verified gain in finding quality or speed.
HackerOne, 2025 · 1,825 active researcherssay AI misses business logic or exploit chains
Only 12% of surveyed researchers believed AI could replace them, reinforcing why VAPT still needs human context and proof.
HackerOne, 2025 · 1,825 active researchersreal vulnerabilities found in a controlled AI challenge
Seven DARPA AIxCC finalist systems analyzed 54 million lines of code and also submitted 11 patches for real flaws. This was a code-security benchmark, not a live web or API pentest.
DARPA AIxCC, 2025 · Controlled benchmark
Service model
Start focused. Expand only where the risk requires it.
The web and API sprint is the core offer. Adjacent surfaces can be added when the architecture and business goal justify them.
Web application penetration testing
Manual testing of browser workflows, sessions, authorization, business logic, input handling, and integration trust.
Review web application coverageAPI penetration testing
Test REST, GraphQL, webhooks, service identities, tenant boundaries, data exposure, and business-flow abuse.
Review API testing coverageWeb & API Pentest Sprint
Combine both surfaces when the customer journey and its supporting APIs share one product trust boundary.
Explore the combined engagement
Buyer resources
Make the pentest easier to buy and harder to waste.
Plain-language guidance for founders, product leaders, and engineering teams.
How to scope a web & API pentest without buying the wrong test
The inputs that change effort, coverage, timeline, and price.
Read the guideWhat a good penetration test report should include
A buyer’s checklist for evidence, impact, remediation, and closure.
Read the guideThe SaaS pentest readiness checklist
Prepare accounts, architecture, contacts, and rules before the test window starts.
Use the checklistWeb and API pentest cost: scope and pricing guide
Understand what drives the quote, compare proposals on equal scope, and expose exclusions before testing starts.
Compare the scope drivers
Questions, answered
Before you put us in scope.
Need a direct answer for procurement or engineering? Email contact@balhence.com.
How is this different from a vulnerability scan?
Automation supports coverage, but every actionable finding is manually validated. The test also examines authentication, authorization, business logic, role boundaries, and exploit chains that a scanner cannot understand on its own.
How long does a web and API pentest take?
A focused engagement commonly takes five to ten working days once scope, access, test accounts, and authorization are ready. The exact test and reporting window is written into the statement of work.
Will testing disrupt production?
The rules of engagement define environments, safe test windows, prohibited actions, rate limits, escalation contacts, and stop conditions before testing begins. Destructive techniques are excluded. A staging environment is preferred when it faithfully represents production.
Do you guarantee compliance or audit acceptance?
No responsible tester can make that promise. The report can be mapped to the agreed security requirements and supplied as evidence, but your auditor, customer, regulator, or QSA makes the final acceptance decision.
Is a re-test included?
Yes. The flagship engagement includes one bounded re-test during the agreed remediation window for findings in the original scope. New features or architecture changes are scoped separately.
What do you need before testing starts?
An asset inventory, written authorization, a technical contact, test accounts for each relevant role, architecture or API documentation where available, and an agreed path for urgent findings.
Next step · no contact details required
Turn your release, audit, or customer request into a testable scope.
Build a private draft brief first. Review the suggested boundary, readiness gaps, assumptions, and deliverables before deciding whether to request a fixed quote.