Application securitywith clear prioritiesfor real delivery

An audit reviews the full scope: architecture, authentication, roles, secrets, dependencies, logs, backups, exposure, and deployment practices. A pentest focuses on targeted attack scenarios to verify whether a flaw can actually be exploited on a defined application, API, or portal.

A one-off engagement can last from a few days to two weeks depending on scope. A quick audit on a limited API or extranet is faster than a broader review with several roles, several environments, SSO, critical dependencies, and remediation that must be re-read afterwards.

The right moment is before a major production release, before opening an extranet to third parties, after a major authentication change, or when an application starts carrying sensitive data, documents, or actions. A pentest is also useful after an incident or before a demanding client audit.

We test the exposed surface, authentication, authorization, session handling, forms, imports, exports, uploads, document access, error handling, selected business-logic scenarios, API endpoints, role quality, dependencies, logs, and the real level of isolation.

Yes. An API often deserves as much attention as the visible interface because it carries authentication, permissions, data, statuses, and sensitive actions. We review endpoint exposure, tokens, role scopes, server-side validation, rate limits, logs, and separation between environments.

Yes. It is a central topic. Many risks come from roles that are too broad, vendor accounts that are too open, incomplete MFA, poorly framed SSO, or insufficient separation between users, administrators, and technical accounts.

The first step is identifying where secrets actually live: environment variables, repositories, CI/CD, servers, cloud tooling, or internal documentation. Then access must be reduced, environments separated, what should be centralized must be centralized, usage must be traceable, and rotation must be prepared where needed.

A WAF filters certain web or API requests before they reach the application. It helps reduce exposure on sensitive routes, slow down some abuses, manage rate limiting, and add a first protection layer. It does not replace a healthy application, clean roles, or solid access control.

Yes, as soon as the application becomes important. You need to be able to review logins, role changes, sensitive exports, errors, selected API calls, and administrative actions. Without usable logging, incidents take longer to understand and are harder to qualify.

Yes. Part of the risk flows through dependencies, images, pipelines, deployment tokens, CI/CD secrets, and overly mixed environments. We can review that perimeter and prioritize what must be fixed quickly without blocking the entire delivery chain.

Yes. That is the most common case. The engagement then consists of reviewing real exposure, access, accounts, dependencies, protections already in place, logs, and recovery procedures without stopping operations more than necessary.

We deliver a readable report, findings ranked by severity and business impact, useful evidence, a prioritized remediation backlog, concrete recommendations on access, secrets, logging, and dependencies, and, when needed, a follow-up review plan after fixes.

Both are possible. Some teams first want an audit or pentest. Others also want the fixes: access hardening, MFA, SSO, secrets, rate limiting, WAF rules, dependency management, improved logging, or environment hardening.

You need a clear backlog, a distinction between what is fixed and what is only mitigated, documented changes on access and protections, and then a revalidation of the important points: authentication, permissions, endpoints, forms, logs, and public exposure.