Penetration testing services

Pricing depends on scope, not headcount. A single external network test can run far cheaper than a full application review with exploitation. Most first engagements land in the low-to-mid five figures, scaled by attack surface. We scope before quoting, so founders see cost tied to actual risk, not a flat rate pulled from a price list.

App store reviews check for obvious policy violations, not exploitable flaws. This testing goes deeper, examining API calls behind the interface, local data storage, and session handling on the device itself. We've caught insecure token storage that passed every store review without issue. Passing Apple or Google's checklist confirms baseline compliance, not real security against a determined, motivated attacker. 

Yes, external testing targets what's already internet-facing, so it rarely touches production stability directly. We schedule intensive phases like exploitation during low-traffic windows and keep a rollback plan ready regardless. Downtime risk comes from live database changes, not simple probing. Founders worried about uptime should flag critical release dates during scoping, before testing windows are set.

Not necessarily. We can start from a simulated compromised laptop, a guest network, or actual VPN credentials, depending on what threat you're modeling. Remote and hybrid teams usually need the VPN scenario tested, since that's the real entry point attackers target now. The access model gets picked with you during scoping, matched to how your team actually works day-to-day.

We stop and notify you immediately, before continuing any planned testing. Every engagement includes an emergency contact clause for exactly this scenario. It's rare, but not unheard of, especially in unpatched cloud environments. Testing pauses until your team confirms the incident is contained, then resumes under a revised scope. Founders should never treat this clause as boilerplate; it matters.

SOC 2 questionnaires confirm that policies exist; they don't prove your code holds up under a real attack. This kind of testing checks actual endpoints, auth flows, and input handling live, not paperwork. Auditors accept both, but only one shows evidence of real resilience. We've seen companies pass SOC 2 with vulnerabilities a first-day pentest would catch immediately. Compliance and security aren't the same thing.

Usually, yes, since most diligence checklists ask for evidence of testing against your live application. Term sheets increasingly include a security review clause, and scrambling after signing looks worse than planning. Startups that book testing early get a clean report to hand over, not a rushed scramble under deadline pressure. We've supported founders through exactly that timeline crunch before.