Penetration Testing Services that end in a fix, not a findings list.

A penetration test is an authorized, simulated attack on your systems, run by security specialists to establish what an attacker could actually do rather than what a tool thinks might be possible. Exploitability, not vulnerability count, decides whether an incident happens: forty low-severity findings with no exploitable path is a safer position than three that chain into account takeover. What you get is a severity-ranked, fix-first report your engineers can act on, and the evidence a buyer or auditor is asking for.

When a specific event raises the price of being wrong: a compliance obligation lands, and regimes such as ISO 27001 and PCI DSS expect regular testing of the systems in scope; you are buying or being bought, and due diligence is where inherited security debt surfaces; a release or cloud migration is about to redraw your trust boundaries; a buyer or a board is asking, and a dated report moves where assurances stall; or you inherited a codebase nobody has reviewed, the most common trigger we see. Outside those moments, cheaper controls usually buy more risk reduction per unit of budget, and cybersecurity consulting is the better first call.

It depends on scope, so we scope the work with you and fix the price before we start rather than publishing a number that would be wrong for most engagements. Cost follows how many applications, APIs and environments are in scope, whether you want black-box, grey-box or white-box testing, how many user roles and tenant boundaries have to be probed, whether a retest is included, and whether you want us to implement the fixes. If remediation becomes ongoing engineering, that is team extension, billed monthly per team member. There is no minimum engagement period.

The testing window is fixed at scoping, before you commit budget, so you know the duration and the deliverable in advance rather than discovering them halfway through. Scope drives it: a single web application in grey-box is a short, focused engagement, while a multi-environment test covering web, APIs, cloud configuration and AI endpoints across several user roles takes considerably longer. Reporting and the read-out sit after the window, and remediation runs on its own schedule.

How much we know before we start changes what we find. Black-box gives the tester your public surface and nothing else, the way a real attacker starts, so it answers what an unauthenticated outsider can reach, at the cost of discovery days one test credential would have skipped. Grey-box adds low-privilege accounts and architecture notes, which is where broken access control, tenant isolation and privilege escalation surface. White-box adds source code and administrative access: the most expensive, and the right call on a regulated system. Most engagements mix them, settled at scoping.

Yes, and we work inside your setup rather than asking you to adopt ours. We test the stacks we build: .NET and ASP.NET, PHP with Laravel or Yii2, React and Vue, with MS SQL, MySQL or PostgreSQL underneath, on AWS and in Docker. Findings go into your issue tracker in the format your engineers already triage, retests run against your branches, and persistent checks are wired into your CI/CD pipeline. Where a third-party integration is the exposure, it is in scope too, subject to that provider's terms.

Automated testing gives you scale and repeatability: known CVEs, outdated dependencies and misconfigurations across a large surface, cheaply and as often as you want. Manual testing finds what a tool structurally cannot: business-logic flaws, broken access control between two legitimate users, tenant isolation failures, and chained exploits where two minor weaknesses combine into something serious. unicrew combines both.

That is the right question, and the answer is in the rules of engagement we agree before anyone touches a system. We execute controlled attacks designed to establish real-world exploitability without disrupting operations, agree which destructive techniques are off the table, and name a contact reachable throughout the window. Where a staging environment genuinely mirrors production we test there. Where only production carries the real data, we agree a window and test it.

Ask four things, and put all four to us as well. Ask what the testers hold and what they do not: unicrew holds ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 9001:2015, audited by Quay Audit UK, and no individual penetration-testing accreditation and no SOC 2, so if your insurer or regulator names a scheme for the tester, that should end the comparison rather than start it. Ask how big the practice is and who will actually run the test: ours is one dedicated security engineer and a part-time senior security consultant. Ask for the review URL rather than the rating, so you read a whole client interview instead of one chosen sentence. And ask in writing who tests and who writes the fix.

No, unicrew is not SOC 2 certified, and we would rather you read that here than find it in procurement. We hold ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 9001:2015, renewed through a multi-stage audit with Quay Audit UK, the internationally accepted equivalent in US security reviews, so your data is handled under an audited regime for the engagement. Our report is testing evidence: what was tested, what was found, what was fixed, which is what most enterprise questionnaires ask for. The certificate is issued by an accredited auditor, never by us.

Both, and they are separate decisions. You can take the report and the ranked list to your own team and never speak to us again. If you want the fixes implemented, our engineers do it in your codebase and pipeline, and we retest each closed finding so the fix is evidenced. That is the practical difference between us and a pure testing firm, where the finding is where the engagement ends. If you need continuous adversary simulation, a 24/7 monitoring desk or a retained incident-response team, hire a dedicated security firm.

Not for standalone penetration tests, and we will not pretend otherwise. Our verified Clutch reviews come from delivery and QA engagements, and each links to its own review page. The closest independent security signal we can publish is a client who had a third party audit code we had written, in his own verified Clutch review, quoted on this page with the link to it. Beyond that: our audited ISO 27001:2022 certification, a HIPAA compliant healthcare consultation platform, the multi-factor authentication platform we re-architected, and an OWASP-aligned research SaaS.

A vulnerability is a flaw that can be exploited, an exploit is the technique used to take advantage of it, and a payload is the code an attacker delivers after gaining access. The OWASP Top 10 lists the ten most critical web application security risks, and your attack surface is every exposure point someone could get in through. A zero-day is an unknown vulnerability with no patch; privilege escalation is gaining higher-level access; red teaming is a goal-driven simulation testing people, process and technology together; and a false positive is a flagged issue that is not exploitable.