Application Security
Web, mobile, desktop
Testing the application itself based on industry standards like OWASP: authentication, authorization, session handling, business logic, and the boundaries where user input reaches something that acts on it.
04 Service
Secure Development.
Security built into the way your team already designs, reviews, and releases, so it holds without slowing delivery.
01 Overview
Overview.
Whether the software your team is building can be attacked, and whether the way they build it will keep producing the same problem.
02 Engagements
Five points in the lifecycle.
When customers start raising security questions, teams usually begin with application testing. For new builds, threat modeling delivers earlier value, while design can still change quickly.
Secure Code and Architecture Review
With the source in front of us
Reading the code and the design together. Source review finds the paths a black box test never reaches, dead-looking branches, error handling, and the assumptions one component makes about another.
Threat Modeling
Before it is built
Working through a design to find where it can go wrong while changing it is still reasonable. Usually a facilitated session with the people who own the system rather than a document we write and hand over. The output that matters is the shared understanding in the room; the diagram is a by-product.
AI and LLM Application Testing
Models, prompts, agents, tool access
Prompt injection, unsafe tool invocation, retrieval poisoning (RAG), and what happens when the model is persuaded to act outside its brief.
DevSecOps
Pipelines, secrets, dependencies
The build system is production: it holds credentials, it can deploy, and it is often the least reviewed part of an infrastructure. We look at pipeline permissions, artifact origin, secret handling, and the dependency chain.
03 Process
How an engagement runs.
Working alongside your team while testing the systems.
- 01
Understanding the system
A session with the engineers, and access to whatever documentation exists. We would rather spend the first day learning what the application is for than begin testing it immediately. Business logic flaws are invisible unless you know what the business logic is supposed to be.
- 02
Scoping the depth
Whether this is black box, credentialed, or full source review, and which components matter most.
- 03
Testing and review
Manual work against the running application, the source, or both. Findings are raised as they are confirmed.
- 04
Working with your developers
We would rather explain a finding to the person who will fix it than write a longer description of it. We discuss approaches instead of prescribing one.
- 05
Making it repeatable
Where it applies, we help put the check into your pipeline, your review template, or your threat model so the same class of issue is caught next time.
- 06
Re-test
Verification that fixes are correct and have not introduced something new. Security fixes made under time pressure are a reliable source of the next finding.
04 Deliverable
What you receive.
- Findings with reproduction steps, raised in your tracker if you want them there
- Root cause for each, not just the instance we happened to find
- Pipeline or review changes that catch the same class of issue next time
- A session with your engineers walking through what was found and why
- Re-test of fixes, including a check that they did not introduce anything new
05 Questions
Common questions.
We already use SAST and dependency scanning. What does this add?
Those tools find the classes of issue that can be described as patterns: known-vulnerable dependencies, injection sinks, hardcoded secrets. They cannot find a broken authorization model, because that requires knowing who should be allowed to do what, and that is not in the code.
Will this slow our delivery down?
It can, if it is done badly. Security that adds gates without adding capability gets routed around, and then you have friction and no benefit. The aim is to put checks where developers already look, with failure conditions they agree are worth failing a build for.
Do you need our source code?
For code review, yes. For application testing, no, though credentials and a walkthrough raise the value considerably.
Do you write the fixes for us?
We give you the detail and the reasoning, discuss approaches, and review your fix.
When should threat modeling happen?
While the design can still change. Doing it after release is not useless, but it turns findings into a backlog of expensive retrofits rather than decisions. If a system is already built, application testing usually tells you more.
Is AI testing meaningfully different from application testing?
The surrounding application is tested the same way. What differs is that the model is a component whose output cannot be fully constrained, so the question becomes what it is permitted to reach and what downstream systems trust it with. Most real findings are in the wiring, not the model.
06 Contact
Tell us what you need.
TowerVector will assist you in taking your security strategy to the next level. Please feel free to contact us:
- [email protected]