Diagnostic Engine Active

Full Attack Surface Coverage

Our Smart PTaaS architecture continually maps, assesses, and defends across every layer of your digital infrastructure. Nine interconnected surfaces, monitored in real-time.

Surface 01 ACTIVE
language

Web Applications

Full Web Application Penetration Testing guide arrow_forward

Deep crawling and dynamic analysis of your web assets. We identify injection flaws, misconfigurations, and complex logic vulnerabilities in real-time.

  • Your website or web app is usually the first thing attackers try — it's public, it's always on, and everyone knows the address.
  • We click through it the same way a hacker would: weird inputs, login screens, checking if one user can see another user's data.
  • Whatever we find gets fixed before it becomes a headline.
> initiating crawl sequence...
> mapping endpoints: 42 discovered
> injecting payload: SQLi-blind-04
> status: secure. 0 vulnerabilities found.
A01:2025-Broken Access Control A05:2025-Injection A02:2025-Security Misconfiguration A06:2025-Insecure Design
View full OWASP Top 10:2025 mapping
A01:2025Broken Access Control
A02:2025Security Misconfiguration
A03:2025Software Supply Chain Failures
A04:2025Cryptographic Failures
A05:2025Injection
A06:2025Insecure Design
A07:2025Authentication Failures
A08:2025Software or Data Integrity Failures
A09:2025Security Logging and Alerting Failures
A10:2025Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions
Surface 02 MONITORING
smartphone

Mobile Apps

Full Mobile Application Penetration Testing guide arrow_forward

Static and dynamic analysis for iOS and Android binaries. Uncover insecure data storage, hardcoded secrets, and weak cryptography.

  • Your app is sitting on thousands of phones, often holding passwords, health data, or payment info.
  • We pull it apart to see if that data's actually protected, or just sitting there in plain sight for anyone who knows where to look.
  • Same goes for weak encryption and secrets someone accidentally left in the code.
ANALYSIS: 75%
M1:2024-Improper Credential Usage M9:2024-Insecure Data Storage M5:2024-Insecure Communication
View full OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024) mapping
M1:2024Improper Credential Usage
M2:2024Inadequate Supply Chain Security
M3:2024Insecure Authentication/Authorization
M4:2024Insufficient Input/Output Validation
M5:2024Insecure Communication
M6:2024Inadequate Privacy Controls
M7:2024Insufficient Binary Protections
M8:2024Security Misconfiguration
M9:2024Insecure Data Storage
M10:2024Insufficient Cryptography
Surface 03
api

APIs

Full API Penetration Testing guide arrow_forward

Comprehensive testing of REST, GraphQL, and SOAP endpoints. We validate authentication logic, rate limiting, and data exposure parameters.

  • APIs are how your systems quietly talk to each other in the background — most people never see them, which is exactly why they get overlooked.
  • We test whether they actually check who's asking before handing over data.
  • A surprising number don't.
API1:2023-BOLA API2:2023-Broken Authentication API7:2023-SSRF
View full OWASP API Security Top 10 (2023) mapping
API1:2023Broken Object Level Authorization
API2:2023Broken Authentication
API3:2023Broken Object Property Level Authorization
API4:2023Unrestricted Resource Consumption
API5:2023Broken Function Level Authorization
API6:2023Unrestricted Access to Sensitive Business Flows
API7:2023Server-Side Request Forgery
API8:2023Security Misconfiguration
API9:2023Improper Inventory Management
API10:2023Unsafe Consumption of APIs
Surface 04 SECURE
router

Network

Full Network Penetration Testing guide arrow_forward

Continuous perimeter scanning and internal network mapping. Identify open ports, outdated services, and misconfigured firewalls before they are exploited.

  • Servers, routers, firewalls — the actual infrastructure holding everything up.
  • We look for the stuff that usually causes breaches: a port left open nobody remembers opening, a firewall rule looser than intended, a service nobody got around to patching.
  • Boring problems. Expensive consequences.
CIS Controls PTES
View full PTES phases & CIS Controls mapping

PTES — 7 phases

01Pre-Engagement Interactions
02Intelligence Gathering
03Threat Modeling
04Vulnerability Analysis
05Exploitation
06Post Exploitation
07Reporting

CIS Controls v8 — network-relevant

CIS 1Inventory and Control of Enterprise Assets
CIS 4Secure Configuration of Enterprise Assets
CIS 12Network Infrastructure Management
CIS 13Network Monitoring and Defense

No dedicated "OWASP Top 10" exists for network infrastructure — PTES and CIS Controls are the recognised frameworks we test against here.

NET_TOPOLOGY
Surface 05
code

Source Code

Full Source Code Review guide arrow_forward

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) integrated directly into your CI/CD pipeline. Catch vulnerabilities in PRs before they reach production.

  • Before your product ships, we read the code itself — not just how it behaves, but how it's built.
  • Some of the worst issues, like a hardcoded password or a shortcut that quietly skips a security check, never show up until someone actually looks at the source.
  • Cheaper to catch it here than after launch.
// Line 42: Potential Command Injection
const result = execSync(`ls ${req.body.dir}`);
^ ACTION REQUIRED
OWASP ASVS A05:2025-Injection A03:2025-Software Supply Chain Failures
View full OWASP Top 10:2025 & ASVS mapping

OWASP Top 10:2025 — code-level categories

A01:2025Broken Access Control
A02:2025Security Misconfiguration
A03:2025Software Supply Chain Failures
A04:2025Cryptographic Failures
A05:2025Injection
A06:2025Insecure Design
A07:2025Authentication Failures
A08:2025Software or Data Integrity Failures
A09:2025Security Logging and Alerting Failures
A10:2025Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions

OWASP ASVS — verification chapters we test against

V4Access Control
V5Validation, Sanitization and Encoding
V8Data Protection
V14Configuration

There is no dedicated "OWASP Top 10 for source code" — SAST findings are mapped back to the Top 10:2025 category they violate, cross-checked against ASVS.

Surface 06 BETA
dns

MCP Servers

Full MCP Server Pentesting Guide guide arrow_forward

Pioneering security for Model Context Protocol servers. We audit prompt injection vectors, context poisoning risks, and unauthorized tool execution paths.

  • MCP is the new standard for letting AI tools plug into your systems — which also makes it the newest thing nobody's really pressure-tested yet.
  • We check whether those connections can be hijacked, whether the AI can be tricked into reaching further than it should, and whether data can leak out through it.
  • Tool Access Audit
  • Context Boundary Checking
  • Prompt Injection Simulation
MCP03:2025-Tool Poisoning MCP05:2025-Command Injection MCP10:2025-Context Injection & Over-Sharing
View full OWASP MCP Top 10 (2025) mapping
MCP01:2025Token Mismanagement & Secret Exposure
MCP02:2025Privilege Escalation via Scope Creep
MCP03:2025Tool Poisoning
MCP04:2025Software Supply Chain Attacks & Dependency Tampering
MCP05:2025Command Injection & Execution
MCP06:2025Intent Flow Subversion
MCP07:2025Insufficient Authentication & Authorization
MCP08:2025Lack of Audit and Telemetry
MCP09:2025Shadow MCP Servers
MCP10:2025Context Injection & Over-Sharing

Framework is at Phase 3 — beta release and pilot testing. Category rankings may still shift; we track updates.

Surface 07 ACTIVE
smart_toy

AI Agents & LLM Applications

Full AI/LLM Penetration Testing guide arrow_forward

Adversarial testing for LLM-powered products. We simulate prompt injection and jailbreak techniques, tool-call hijacking and excessive agency abuse, RAG and vector-store exfiltration, and system prompt or training-data leakage — mapped to the OWASP LLM Top 10.

  • If your product has an AI that can take real actions — sending emails, looking things up, moving money — someone out there will try to talk it into doing something it shouldn't.
  • That's our job before they get to it: jailbreak it, confuse it, trick it into ignoring its own rules.
  • Then we show you exactly where it folded.
> loading OWASP LLM Top 10 payload set...
> simulating jailbreak: encoded-injection-11
> probing tool-call boundary: send_email()
> status: critical. excessive agency confirmed.
LLM01:2025-Prompt Injection LLM06:2025-Excessive Agency ASI01:2026-Agent Goal Hijack ASI02:2026-Tool Misuse & Exploitation
View full LLM Top 10 (2025) & Agentic Top 10 (2026) mapping

OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025)

LLM01:2025Prompt Injection
LLM02:2025Sensitive Information Disclosure
LLM03:2025Supply Chain
LLM04:2025Data and Model Poisoning
LLM05:2025Improper Output Handling
LLM06:2025Excessive Agency
LLM07:2025System Prompt Leakage
LLM08:2025Vector and Embedding Weaknesses
LLM09:2025Misinformation
LLM10:2025Unbounded Consumption

OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications (2026)

ASI01:2026Agent Goal Hijack
ASI02:2026Tool Misuse & Exploitation
ASI03:2026Agent Identity & Privilege Abuse
ASI04:2026Agentic Supply Chain Compromise
ASI05:2026Unexpected Code Execution
ASI06:2026Memory & Context Poisoning
ASI07:2026Insecure Inter-Agent Communication
ASI08:2026Cascading Agent Failures
ASI09:2026Human-Agent Trust Exploitation
ASI10:2026Rogue Agents
Surface 08 NEW
desktop_windows

Thick Client Applications

Full Thick Client Penetration Testing guide arrow_forward

Static and dynamic analysis of native Windows, macOS, and Linux applications. We reverse-engineer binaries to uncover insecure IPC, DLL hijacking, hardcoded credentials, unsafe local storage, and unauthenticated update channels.

  • Not everything is a website — plenty of business tools are programs people install straight onto their computer.
  • Those come with their own blind spots: passwords hidden in the software itself, or an update system that'll install pretty much anything sent to it.
  • We check for both.
  • Binary & Memory Analysis
  • IPC / Named Pipe Testing
  • Local Storage & Credential Audit
  • Auto-Update Integrity Checks
A06:2025-Insecure Design A04:2025-Cryptographic Failures OWASP Testing Guide
View full OWASP Top 10:2025 mapping
A01:2025Broken Access Control
A02:2025Security Misconfiguration
A03:2025Software Supply Chain Failures
A04:2025Cryptographic Failures
A05:2025Injection
A06:2025Insecure Design
A07:2025Authentication Failures
A08:2025Software or Data Integrity Failures
A09:2025Security Logging and Alerting Failures
A10:2025Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions

No dedicated "OWASP Top 10" exists for thick client / desktop apps — findings map back to Top 10:2025 categories, cross-checked against the OWASP Testing Guide's desktop application chapter.

Surface 09 NEW
extension

Chrome Extensions

Full Chrome Extension Penetration Testing guide arrow_forward

Manifest permission audits, content-script injection review and messaging-security checks for Chrome and Chromium-based browser extensions.

  • Your extension runs inside every page a user visits — with permissions most of those pages never get.
  • We check whether an over-broad permission or an insecure messaging channel can be turned against the sites it's supposed to protect.
  • Same goes for extensions that quietly fetch and run remote code instead of shipping it in the reviewed package.
A01:2025-Broken Access Control A05:2025-Injection Chrome Web Store Security Best Practices
View full OWASP Top 10:2025 mapping
A01:2025Broken Access Control
A02:2025Security Misconfiguration
A03:2025Software Supply Chain Failures
A05:2025Injection
A08:2025Software or Data Integrity Failures

No dedicated "OWASP Top 10" exists for browser extensions — findings map back to Top 10:2025 categories, cross-checked against the manifest permissions model and Manifest V3's remote-code restrictions.

Common Questions

About the attack surface

What are the 9 attack surfaces ComplyArmor tests?

Web applications, mobile apps (iOS and Android), APIs, network infrastructure, source code, MCP servers, AI agents and LLM applications, thick client desktop applications, and Chrome browser extensions — tested continuously rather than as a one-off scoped engagement.

Do I have to test all 9 surfaces, or can I scope just one?

You can scope any surface individually or run all nine together. Running them together catches vulnerability chains that start in one surface and end in another, which two separately-scoped assessments would each report as clean.

What's the difference between AI Agent testing and MCP Server testing?

MCP server testing covers the protocol-layer infrastructure your agents connect to — tool poisoning, authentication, command injection. AI agent testing covers the agent's own behaviour — prompt injection, excessive agency, goal hijack — mapped to the OWASP LLM Top 10 and Agentic (ASI) Top 10.

Does ComplyArmor test thick client (desktop) applications?

Yes. Native Windows, macOS and Linux applications are reverse-engineered for insecure IPC, DLL hijacking, hardcoded credentials, unsafe local storage and unauthenticated update channels.

Ready when you are

Stop shipping vulnerabilities. Start shipping secure.

Book a live demo to see how ComplyArmor works — then walk away with a sample report.