Security Audits & Vulnerability Assessment
A clear picture of where your security actually stands
We assess a system as it is today: reviewing the application, server configuration, dependency tree, and access model against known weakness patterns, then rating each finding by severity and handing you a prioritized remediation plan — so you know exactly where you stand and what to fix first.
Findings · as at the date of test
14 raised · 13 open
True on the day it was issued. That isn't a caveat. It's what the document is. A certificate says the thing passed a test on the day; it can't promise it will keep passing.
Maintenance, Support & Operations
A point-in-time assessment that names risks and ranks the fixes
This is the deliberate, at-a-moment examination of your security posture: a structured review of the application, the server and its configuration, the dependency tree, and who can access what — measured against known vulnerability patterns. The output isn't a vague 'you should improve security'; it's a rated list of specific findings and a remediation plan ordered by severity, so you know precisely where the real exposure is and which fixes to make first.
What you get out of it
Exposure named, not guessed
The assessment produces a concrete list of specific vulnerabilities in your actual system, replacing a vague sense of risk with findings you can act on.
A fix order that makes sense
Each finding is rated by severity and exploitability, so the remediation plan tells you what to close first rather than dumping an undifferentiated list.
A baseline to measure against
A documented assessment gives you a known posture to compare future reviews against, turning security into something you can track improving.
What we do
What the test covers
Application review
Examining the app for common weakness classes — injection, broken access control, insecure handling of data and sessions — against known vulnerability patterns.
- Weakness-class review
- Access-control checks
- Input & session handling
Infrastructure & config assessment
Reviewing server configuration, exposed services, and hardening state to find the misconfigurations that widen the attack surface.
- Config review
- Exposed-service check
- Hardening gaps
Dependency & permission audit
Auditing the dependency tree for known-vulnerable components and the access model for over-broad or stale permissions.
- Dependency audit
- Known-CVE scan
- Permission review
Findings & remediation plan
Rating each finding by severity and exploitability, then ordering a remediation plan so the highest-risk issues are addressed first.
- Severity rating
- Prioritized remediation
- Findings report
How it goes
Ten days, scope to fix order
Day 1
Scope gets defined
The app, servers, dependencies, and access model are agreed as the bounds of the review.
Day 3
Every area gets assessed
Application logic, infrastructure, the dependency tree, and permissions are examined against known weakness patterns.
Day 8
Findings get rated
Each vulnerability is scored by severity and exploitability, separating real risk from theoretical noise.
Day 10
A fix order arrives
A prioritized remediation plan tells you exactly what to close first, along with everything that was found.
Three areas on the ramp
Application Review
The app is examined for common weakness classes (injection, broken access control, insecure handling of data and sessions) against known vulnerability patterns.
- Weakness-class review
- Cross-tenant access checks
- Input & session handling
Infrastructure & Config
Server configuration, exposed services, and hardening state are reviewed to find the misconfigurations that quietly widen the attack surface.
- Configuration review
- Exposed-service check
- Hardening gap analysis
Dependencies & Permissions
The dependency tree is checked for known-vulnerable components, and the access model is reviewed for over-broad or stale permissions.
- Known-CVE dependency scan
- Permission model review
- Stale-access detection
How we work
Scope the review
Define what's in the assessment — the app, servers, dependencies, and access model — so the review is thorough within clear bounds.
Assess
Examine each area against known weakness patterns, from application logic to server configuration to the dependency tree.
Rate the findings
Score each vulnerability by severity and exploitability so real exposure is separated from theoretical noise.
Plan remediation
Deliver a prioritized remediation plan that orders the fixes by risk, so effort goes to what matters most first.
Why it pays
Specific findings, never vague warnings
The output names the actual vulnerabilities in your system. No generic 'improve security.'
A fix order that makes sense
Severity and exploitability ratings tell you what to close first as well as what exists.
The critical stuff surfaces early
A cross-tenant or access-control flaw gets found before launch, long before a customer reports it.
Permissions get a real review
Over-broad and stale access gets caught alongside application-level vulnerabilities.
Beyond what a scanner alone finds
Judgment on exploitability separates a real risk from a scanner's false positive.
A baseline you can measure against
A documented assessment gives future reviews something concrete to compare improvement to.
Selected work
What you get
Findings report
A documented list of specific vulnerabilities across the app, infrastructure, dependencies, and permissions.
Severity ratings
Each finding scored by severity and exploitability so real risk is clear at a glance.
Remediation plan
A prioritized, actionable plan ordering the fixes by risk so the highest exposure is closed first.
Industry expertise
Fintech & payroll platforms · Cross-tenant access control gets specifically tested before real financial data goes live.
Healthcare software · Patient data access and application logic are assessed against known weakness patterns pre-launch.
Legal & professional services · Client-confidential data gets an access-model review before it's trusted with sensitive matters.
E-commerce & retail · Payment and customer data flows are reviewed for the flaws that scanners alone tend to miss.
B2B SaaS platforms · Multi-tenant isolation gets tested specifically. We never assume it from the architecture diagram.
Teams preparing for a launch or audit · A rated findings report and fix plan turn a compliance deadline into an achievable checklist.
Want to know where your security actually stands?
Tell us what to review — we'll assess the app, servers, dependencies, and access, then hand you a rated findings report and a fix order.
Why us for this
We rate every finding
Severity and exploitability scoring means you know what actually matters first.
We go beyond automated scanning
Judgment on real exploitability separates genuine risk from a scanner's false positive.
We test cross-tenant and access-control specifically
The exact class of flaw that a generic scan tends to miss gets deliberate attention.
We hand over a plan, not just a report
The deliverable orders fixes by risk, so the next step is always clear.
We scope the review with you upfront
The app, infrastructure, dependencies, and access model are agreed bounds, so the review never turns into an open-ended fishing trip.
We've caught the finding that would have mattered most
A critical cross-tenant flaw found four days before launch is exactly the kind of catch this assessment is built for.
Working with Flaidex
We name the risk specifically
"You should improve security" isn't a finding. A rated, specific vulnerability is.
We prioritize honestly
The remediation plan tells you what actually matters first. You won't get an alphabetized list.
We look past what a scanner reports
Exploitability in your actual system is what determines real risk, more than any generic severity score.
We treat the review as a snapshot
We're upfront that its value fades as the system evolves, and we recommend pairing it with ongoing monitoring.
We scope clearly before we start
You know exactly what's being assessed, so the findings are trustworthy within a known boundary.
We've been the reason a launch didn't become an incident
Finding the critical flaw before customer data was on the platform is the whole point.
Appendix · questions
Asked before the scope is signed
Do we need an audit if we already have monitoring, or the other way around?
You most likely want both, because they do opposite things. An audit is point-in-time: at a chosen moment, we examine the system in depth and report the vulnerabilities we find, rated and prioritized. Security monitoring is continuous — the ongoing watching, CVE triage, and patching that runs day to day between audits. The audit tells you where you stand right now and what to fix; monitoring keeps you defended as new threats emerge afterward. They're complementary, but this service is the deliberate assessment, not the standing watch.
What does the assessment actually cover?
Four areas, examined against known weakness patterns: the application itself — logic, access control, how it handles input and sessions; the infrastructure — server configuration, exposed services, hardening state; the dependency tree — components with known vulnerabilities; and the access model — who can reach what, and where permissions are over-broad or stale. The scope is agreed up front so the review is thorough within clear bounds rather than open-ended.
Will you just hand us a long list of problems and leave?
No — an unordered list is close to useless, and we don't deliver one. Every finding is rated by severity and exploitability, and the deliverable is a remediation plan that orders the fixes by real risk, so you know what to close first. The point of the assessment is to make the next steps clear and prioritized, not to produce an intimidating catalog that leaves you unsure where to even begin.
How is this different from an automated vulnerability scan?
An automated scanner is a useful input, but it's not the whole assessment. Scanners flag known-vulnerable dependencies and some common misconfigurations, but they miss logic flaws, broken access control specific to your app, and the exploitability context that separates a real risk from a false positive. We use scanning where it helps and then apply judgment on top — assessing whether a flagged issue is actually reachable and dangerous in your particular system, which a scanner alone can't tell you.
How often should we get an audit done?
It depends on how fast the system and its exposure change, but the common triggers are worth naming: after significant changes to the application or infrastructure, before a launch that raises the stakes, when compliance requires it, or periodically to catch the drift that accumulates. Because an audit is a snapshot, its value fades as the system evolves — which is why many teams pair periodic audits with the continuous monitoring that covers the gaps between them.
Let's talk
Running a large platform, shaping a first MVP, or getting a product ready for a funding round? Tell us where you are. We'll shape the process around it, and stay with you after launch.
