Core Capability
Audit-Ready Enterprise VAPT
A penetration test that clears your audit rather than creating more work for it — findings mapped to the framework you are certifying against, with the evidence and closure your auditor expects.
- Evidence mapped to SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI-DSS, HIPAA and RBI requirements
- Written for auditors and engineers in the same document
- Remediation and closure evidence, not just a findings list
Why compliance-driven tests so often fail their purpose
A report can be technically excellent and still be rejected. Auditors are not assessing your security posture from first principles; they are checking that a defined control was tested, by a competent party, within a defined period, and that whatever was found has been addressed. A document that lists forty findings with no severity rationale, no scope statement and no evidence of retest creates work rather than closing it.
We write the report backwards from the question your auditor will ask, so the artifact you hand over answers it directly.
Frameworks we map evidence to
SOC 2
Testing scoped to the Trust Services Criteria relevant to your report, with evidence packaged for the observation period your auditor is examining and clear statements of scope, method and competence.
ISO 27001
Technical testing evidence for the Annex A controls that require it, aligned to your statement of applicability and your risk treatment plan, so the results slot into your existing ISMS documentation.
PCI-DSS
Segmentation validation and application testing against the cardholder data environment, with the scope boundary documented in the form assessors expect.
HIPAA
Testing focused on systems that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information, with findings framed against the Security Rule safeguards.
RBI and Indian regulatory requirements
For regulated financial entities, testing and reporting structured around the technical artifacts Indian regulators and their appointed auditors request.
What the evidence pack contains
- A scope and methodology statement naming what was tested, how, when and by whom
- Findings with severity, exploitability and business impact stated separately, so ratings can be defended
- Reproduction evidence for every finding, including screenshots, requests and recordings
- Remediation guidance written for the engineers who will implement it
- A control mapping table linking each finding to the relevant clause or criterion
- Retest results and a closure statement for remediated items
Timing your test around an audit
The most common scheduling mistake is testing too late. If the test finishes a week before your audit window closes, there is no time to remediate, and open critical findings are harder to explain than findings that were found and fixed.
Testing six to eight weeks ahead of your audit date leaves room for a remediation cycle and a retest, so what your auditor receives is a closed loop rather than an open list. Where you are already inside that window, we prioritise by what is most likely to be questioned and sequence the work accordingly.
After the report
Compliance testing that ends at delivery leaves your team to interpret findings alone, usually under deadline pressure. We stay engaged through remediation, review fixes as they are written, and provide the retest evidence that turns an open finding into a closed one.
Common questions
Will this report satisfy our auditor?
It is written for that purpose: scope, methodology, competence, severity rationale, reproduction evidence and control mapping are all stated explicitly, because those are the elements auditors challenge. If your auditor has a required format or specific evidence requests, tell us during scoping and we will structure the deliverable to match.
How far ahead of our audit should we test?
Six to eight weeks is comfortable. That leaves time for a remediation cycle and a retest, so your auditor sees closed findings rather than open ones. We can work inside a shorter window by prioritising the areas most likely to be examined.
Do we need an annual test or continuous testing?
Most frameworks require testing at least annually and after significant change. If you deploy frequently, an annual test tells you about an application that no longer exists, so continuous or periodic testing between formal assessments is usually a better fit for the risk and often for the budget.
Do you work with our auditor directly?
If you want us to, yes. Answering an auditor's technical follow-up on scope, methodology or severity rationale is usually faster coming from the people who did the testing. We take instruction from you on what is shared and we do not approach your auditor independently.
Can one engagement cover several compliance frameworks?
Usually, provided the scope covers the systems each framework cares about and the report maps findings to each set of control references. The saving comes from the mapping and from testing once rather than repeatedly. Framework-specific obligations, such as PCI-DSS segmentation testing, still have to be scoped explicitly.
What if we have no security programme in place yet?
That is a common starting point and it changes sequencing rather than eligibility. Testing early tells you what your actual risk is, which makes the programme you build afterwards proportionate instead of generic. We will say plainly if a full audit-focused engagement is premature and what is worth doing first.
Do you help with remediation or only report it?
Findings are written for the engineer who has to fix them, with the specific change rather than a generic recommendation, and we answer questions from your developers during remediation. Implementing the fixes inside your codebase is separate work and we scope it separately, because the independence that makes the testing credible is worth preserving.
Let's scope your infrastructure.
Tell us what you have built and what you are testing against. You will speak to a Lead Security Architect, not a sales desk, and you will get a written scope with a fixed price before any work begins.