Engineering Trust.
Rigorous, repeatable, and architected for transparency. Our methodology transforms security assessments from opaque processes into structured, auditable data pipelines.
Methodology Frameworks
OWASP Top 10 Alignment
Systematic evaluation against the most critical web application security risks. Our payload generation and attack simulation engine maps directly to OWASP categories, ensuring comprehensive coverage of modern threat vectors.
Application Security Verification Standard
Deep-dive verification levels mapped to application risk profiles. We execute L1 through L3 assessments based on architectural complexity.
Penetration Testing Execution Standard
Rigorous adherence to pre-engagement, intelligence gathering, threat modeling, and exploitation phases for standardized consistency.
CREST Guidelines
Executing assessments in alignment with internationally recognized standards for ethical hacking and technical security testing.
The Attacker Loop
Discover
Asset mapping, OSINT, and perimeter footprinting.
Scan
Vulnerability enumeration and service profiling.
Validate
Impact analysis, documentation, and remediation guidance.
Exploit
Safe weaponization and pivot modeling.
Continuous Verification Cycle
The attacker loop is not linear; it is iterative. By simulating real-world adversary behavior through a constrained, repeatable loop, we identify compound vulnerabilities that static analysis misses.
From Finding to Fix
Validation isn't where the report ends. Every finding carries what your team actually needs to close it — and the people reading it don't all need the same version of that information.
Armor AI
A free chat scoped to your org's own findings — ask it to explain a finding or suggest a fix, no call required.
Developer Remediation
A real fix in the finding's own language and framework where it's inferable — not a generic OWASP paragraph to translate yourself.
Built for every reader
A Board View, an Engineering View, and every finding mapped to compliance controls — built into every report. Still unclear? Ask Armor AI for a plain-English explanation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What methodology frameworks does ComplyArmor follow?
OWASP Top 10, the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), the Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES), and CREST guidelines — executed as a hybrid automated-plus-manual process rather than a single static checklist.
What is "the attacker loop"?
Our four-phase continuous verification cycle: Discover, Scan, Exploit and Validate — run iteratively, not as a one-pass linear checklist, so compound vulnerabilities that static analysis misses still surface.
Is testing fully automated, or does a human verify findings?
Both. Discovery, scanning and first-pass exploitation are automated and continuous. Every finding that clears a confidence threshold is then manually verified by a human tester before it reaches your report.
What's the difference between OWASP Top 10 and ASVS testing?
OWASP Top 10 is a risk-category checklist covering the most critical web vulnerabilities. ASVS is a deeper verification standard with graduated levels (L1-L3) mapped to your application's risk profile.
What happens after a finding is validated — do we just get a PDF?
No. Every validated finding ships with Developer Remediation — a real fix in the finding's own language and framework where that's inferable — and you get Armor AI, a free chat scoped to your org's own findings, to ask follow-up questions or get help prioritizing, without booking a call.
Can non-technical stakeholders understand ComplyArmor's reports?
Yes. Every report includes a Board View for non-technical stakeholders, an Engineering View with full technical detail, and every finding mapped to the relevant compliance controls — so a developer, a non-technical founder, and an auditor each get what they need from the same report. If a question remains, Armor AI can also explain any finding in plain English directly in chat.