Free Assessment

Table of Contents

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less.

Request a Demo

Home

  / ,

  / What Is Penetration Testing? A Practical Guide to Methods, Timelines, and Compliance Outcomes

What Is Penetration Testing? A Practical Guide to Methods, Timelines, and Compliance Outcomes

Picture of Thatware
Copy Link

Cyber threats are no longer theoretical. They are automated, persistent, and increasingly aimed at organisations that believe they are “too small to be a target”.

Whether you are a SaaS startup, a regulated enterprise, or a growing organisation preparing for ISO 27001 or SOC 2, penetration testing is no longer optional. It is a core security and compliance requirement.

At Axipro, penetration testing is designed to do more than find weaknesses. It helps organisations understand their real-world risk, validate security controls, and prioritise remediation in a way that supports audits, certifications, and long-term growth.

Main Objectives of Penetration Testing

The Axipro penetration testing framework is built around four primary objectives:

  • Identify vulnerabilities across applications, infrastructure, and exposed services before attackers do.
  • Improve security posture by understanding how systems behave under real attack conditions, not just theoretical assessments.
  • Prioritise remediation so teams focus on the vulnerabilities that pose genuine business risk, rather than chasing low-impact findings.
  • Validate security controls to ensure that policies, configurations, and safeguards actually work in practice.

Penetration testing is not about producing long reports. It is about producing clarity.

 

Introduction & Methodology

Penetration testing at Axipro follows a structured, repeatable methodology that aligns with modern security standards and compliance frameworks.

The methodology is designed to simulate real-world attacks while remaining controlled, auditable, and business-focused. This ensures findings are both technically accurate and compliance-ready.

The process balances automation with deep manual testing, recognising that tools alone cannot uncover logic flaws, chained vulnerabilities, or contextual risk.

 

Project Map

The project map illustrated above provides a clear, end-to-end view of how an Axipro penetration testing engagement is delivered .

Rather than treating testing as a single activity, Axipro approaches it as a sequence of interconnected phases, each building on the last.

 

Kick Off

The engagement begins with a structured kick-off.

This phase defines:

  • Project stakeholders

  • Scope boundaries

  • Timeline and milestones

  • Terminology and testing methodology

  • Type of testing to be performed

This step is critical. Clear scoping ensures the test reflects real business risk and avoids both blind spots and unnecessary noise.

 

Initial Scanning

Initial scanning focuses on information gathering and attack surface discovery.

Axipro collects intelligence on the target environment using scanning tools and publicly available sources. This mirrors how real attackers begin their reconnaissance.

The goal is not exploitation, but understanding what is visible, reachable, and potentially misconfigured.

 

Assessment & Analysis

 

This is the core analytical phase of the engagement.

During assessment and analysis, Axipro:

  • Scans for known vulnerabilities and misconfigurations

  • Performs automated and manual testing

  • Conducts targeted manual penetration attempts

  • Analyses authentication flows, access controls, and exposed APIs

  • Evaluates real exploitability rather than theoretical risk

This phase separates generic vulnerability scanning from true penetration testing.

 

Exploitation

 

In the exploitation phase, Axipro safely attempts to exploit validated vulnerabilities.

This step answers the most important question for leadership:

What could an attacker actually do with this weakness?

Exploitation is controlled, non-destructive, and focused on demonstrating impact rather than causing disruption.

 

Reporting

The final phase is reporting and closeout.

Axipro delivers a structured penetration testing report that:

  • Documents all findings

  • Rates vulnerabilities by severity

  • Explains business impact in clear language

  • Provides actionable remediation recommendations

The report is designed to support engineering teams, leadership, and auditors alike.

 

Tools Used

Axipro uses a broad range of industry-standard tools, supported by expert-led manual testing .

These include vulnerability scanners, network analysis tools, application testing platforms, API testing tools, and custom scripts.

However, tools are only part of the equation.

Automation finds volume. Expertise finds risk.

Manual testing techniques such as code review, API analysis, SQL injection testing, and custom exploitation scripts are critical to uncovering vulnerabilities that scanners routinely miss.

Black Box Testing

Black box testing is performed with no prior knowledge of the internal workings of the system.

Testers approach the application from an external attacker’s perspective, relying on publicly accessible interfaces and behaviour.

 

Advantages

 

Black box testing provides a realistic simulation of external attacks, helping organisations:

  • Identify externally exposed weaknesses

  • Improve overall security posture

  • Support compliance requirements

  • Prioritise risk based on real-world attack paths

 

Disadvantages

 

Because internal code and architecture are not visible, some deep or logic-based vulnerabilities may remain undetected.

 

White Box Testing

White box testing provides testers with full knowledge of the internal code, architecture, and design.

Axipro’s security team uses this visibility to examine internal logic, security mechanisms, and code quality.

 

Advantages

White box testing enables:

  • Comprehensive testing coverage

  • Identification of complex vulnerabilities

  • Accurate risk assessment

  • Early detection during development

  • Validation of security controls

 

Disadvantages

White box testing can be time-consuming, more costly, and dependent on internal access. It may also create a false sense of security if not paired with external testing.

Grey Box Testing

Grey box testing combines elements of both black box and white box testing.

Testers have partial knowledge of the internal system, such as architecture diagrams or limited access credentials.

 

Advantages

This approach provides a balanced perspective, allowing:

  • Realistic attack simulation

  • In-depth evaluation

  • Efficient vulnerability identification

  • Practical risk prioritisation

 

Disadvantages

Grey box testing may still have scope limitations and incomplete coverage, particularly in complex or legacy environments.

 

Penetration Testing Timeline

While timelines vary based on scope and complexity, a standard engagement includes:

Kick-off and planning, followed by initial scanning, assessment and analysis, exploitation, and reporting.

In most cases, penetration testing is completed within one to two weeks, providing fast, actionable insight without disrupting operations.

Penetration Testing Plans

Axipro offers scalable penetration testing plans aligned with organisational size, growth stage, and compliance needs.

The Basic plan is suitable for smaller organisations or single-framework requirements, including one round of retesting.

The Scale plan supports growing organisations that require multiple retesting cycles and deeper coverage.

The Growth plan is designed for organisations with frequent testing needs and evolving attack surfaces.

Each plan integrates seamlessly with Axipro’s broader compliance services, including ISO 27001, SOC 2, internal audits, and compliance as a service.

Basic

  • 1 Round of Retesting
Talk with us

Scale

  • 3 Rounds of Retesting
Talk with us

Growth

  • Frequent Retesting
Talk with us

Why Penetration Testing Matters Beyond Security

Penetration testing is not just a technical exercise.

It supports:

  • Regulatory compliance

  • Customer trust

  • Enterprise sales cycles

  • Investor due diligence

  • Long-term risk reduction

A clear, well-documented penetration test demonstrates that security is not theoretical, but operational.

Take the Next Step

If you are preparing for certification, responding to customer security questionnaires, or simply want confidence in your security posture, penetration testing is the logical next step.

Axipro combines human expertise, structured methodology, and compliance alignment to deliver penetration testing that actually drives outcomes.

Book a consultation, request a security assessment, or speak with Axipro about integrating penetration testing into your compliance roadmap today.

At Axipro Technology, excellence is standard.

 
 

Axipro Author

Picture of Thatware

Thatware

Copy Link

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

Read More Blogs

AIUC-1 AI Agent Certification: The Complete Guide

Most security certifications were built for software that follows rules. AI agents do not. They consume data, draw conclusions, call tools, and take action, increasingly without a human in the loop. That gap is what AIUC-1 was created to close: it is the first auditable security standard built specifically for AI agents, and a few enterprise buyers have started asking vendors for it by name. This guide covers what AIUC-1 actually tests, the six risk domains it audits, how the certification process works, what it costs, how long it lasts, and how it aligns with SOC 2, ISO 42001, ISO 27001, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. It also covers the structural questions worth asking before you treat an AIUC-1 report as proof of anything. What Is AIUC-1 Certification? AIUC-1 is a certifiable standard for AI agents created by the Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company (AIUC), a San Francisco-based, venture-backed startup founded by people with experience at organizations including Anthropic. The standard was developed with input from Orrick, Stanford, the Cloud Security Alliance, MIT, and MITRE, and launched in mid-2025. The framework comprises 51 requirements and 130 controls, organized across six risk pillars. It evaluates whether an organization has implemented and tested the technical guardrails, operational practices, and legal policies needed to reduce the risk of unsafe, unreliable, or unauthorized AI behavior. Certification applies to a specific AI system or product, not to the organization as a whole. An AIUC-1 certificate, audit report, and badge tell enterprise buyers that an agent has been independently tested against agent-specific risks. People describe AIUC-1 as the “SOC 2 for AI agents,” and the analogy holds in spirit. The difference is what it looks at. SOC 2 examines a service organization’s general controls. AIUC-1 examines how an agent behaves under pressure: when someone tries to jailbreak it, when it is asked to do something outside its scope, when it has access to data it should not expose. Worth Knowing: About AIUC-1 AIUC-1 does not define what counts as an “AI agent.” The vendor decides which system to certify and what falls in scope. That makes scope the single most important thing to check on any certificate, because a narrowly scoped audit may not cover the agent you actually use. Why AIUC-1 Certification Matters for Enterprise AI Adoption The business case rests on a simple problem: enterprises cannot reliably assess the security of their AI vendors, and the failures are expensive. According to EY research on responsible AI, 64% of companies with over $1 billion in revenue have already lost more than $1 million to AI-related failures.  That gap shows up directly in sales cycles. When security, legal, and procurement teams evaluate an AI vendor, they ask about hallucinations, prompt injection defenses, and what happens when an agent makes an unauthorized call. SOC 2 and ISO 27001 do not answer those questions. AIUC-1 gives buyers a structured, third-party-tested answer, which is why holding the certificate can move a stalled procurement review forward. The certification also produces real engineering outcomes, not just a badge. AIUC has reported cases where a customer service agent’s hallucination rate dropped from 11% to under 2% after strengthening its groundedness filter, and another where inappropriate-tone outputs fell from 9% to under 2% through better defensive prompting and output moderation. One company found and patched a PII exposure vulnerability during the certification process itself. The Six Core Risk Domains Covered by AIUC-1 AIUC-1’s 51 requirements are grouped into six domains. Each targets a category of risk that traditional security frameworks were not designed to handle. Data and Privacy Covers how customer data is used, retained, and protected. Requirements address input and output data policies, limits on what data the agent can access, protection of IP and trade secrets, prevention of cross-customer data exposure, and prevention of PII leakage. This is where the standard forces clarity on whether customer data trains the model and how long it is kept. Security The adversarial-resistance domain. It covers third-party testing of adversarial robustness, detection and real-time filtering of malicious inputs, prevention of prompt injection and unauthorized agent actions, enforcement of user access privileges, and protection of the deployment environment. This is the heart of what separates an agent audit from a general security audit. Safety Focuses on preventing harmful and out-of-scope outputs. Requirements include defining an AI risk taxonomy, conducting pre-deployment testing, preventing harmful and customer-defined high-risk outputs, and flagging high-risk outputs for human review. Safety is partly judgment-based, which means documentation alone can sometimes satisfy a requirement, so the testing behind it deserves scrutiny. Reliability Targets the failure modes that erode trust in production: hallucinations and tool misuse. Controls cover hallucination prevention and restrictions on which tools an agent can call and when. For a customer-facing agent, this is the domain that keeps it from inventing a refund policy or triggering the wrong workflow. Accountability Covers what happens when things go wrong. Requirements include AI failure response plans, vendor due diligence, and clear AI disclosure so users know when they are interacting with an agent. With human workers, accountability is built into org charts and chains of command. Agents need an equivalent, and this domain supplies it. Society The broadest domain, focused on preventing misuse with wider consequences: AI-enabled cyber attacks and CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) misuse. Most enterprise agents will touch only a few of these controls, but they matter for higher-capability systems. Insider Note: Of the 130 total controls, roughly 65 are mandatory, and 65 are optional. A straightforward agent typically needs to meet around 40 controls. A complex, multi-modal agent gets closer to 65. The scoping exercise determines which apply, so two AIUC-1 certificates can represent very different amounts of work. Ready to Earn Your AIUC-1 Certification? Accelerate Your AI Certification Journey Talk to an Expert Who Needs AIUC-1 Certification? AIUC-1 is built for any company developing or deploying agentic AI that sells into enterprises. The strongest fit is an organization whose product uses AI agents in customer-facing operations, handles

Read more

SOC 2 Password Requirements: What Auditors Check

Most teams walk into a SOC 2 audit expecting standard requirements for their password policy: minimum length, 90-day rotation, one uppercase letter, one symbol, and so on. But there is no such checklist. The AICPA never published a list of mandatory password rules, and the federal guidance that most auditors lean on has thrown out half of what passed for best practice a decade ago.  Beyond compliance, this is remains a crucial cybersecurity control: Stolen and brute-forced credentials still drive a large share of breaches, and password policies are the main way to mitigate this risk. This guide covers what SOC 2 expects around passwords, where those expectations come from, and how to build a policy that satisfies an auditor without making your security worse. What Are SOC 2 Password Requirements? SOC 2 password requirements are the access controls that a service organization implements to govern how passwords are created, stored, enforced, and retired, all in service of the Trust Services Criteria. The important word is controls, not rules. SOC 2 does not hand you a specification. It asks whether your controls are suitably designed and operating effectively to keep unauthorized people out of your systems.   The Role of Passwords in the SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria The Trust Services Criteria, developed by the AICPA, are the evaluation standard for every SOC 2 report. Passwords sit inside the Security category, which is mandatory in all SOC 2 engagements, and specifically inside the Common Criteria series CC6, covering logical and physical access. Passwords are one of the most basic logical access controls you have, and one of the most scrutinized, because CC6 is usually the most evidence-intensive part of the entire audit. Relevant Common Criteria: CC6.1, CC6.2, and CC6.3 CC6.1 covers the controls that restrict logical access to systems, infrastructure, and data, this is where your password policy, MFA enforcement, and account lockout settings live. CC6.2 governs how access is granted, modified, and removed, meaning your provisioning workflows, access reviews, and offboarding processes are all evaluated here. CC6.3 focuses on the removal of access when it is no longer needed and the management of privileged credentials specifically. Together, these three criteria map to the full lifecycle of a credential: creation, ongoing use, and retirement. An auditor working through CC6 will expect evidence at every stage.   Does SOC 2 Mandate Specific Password Rules? No. The AICPA is explicit that the Trust Services Criteria do not define the controls an organization must have. You identify and implement controls that meet the criteria, and the auditor evaluates them. That means there is no AICPA-mandated minimum length, no required rotation interval, and no prescribed complexity formula. What the auditor checks is whether your stated controls exist, work, and reasonably prevent unauthorized access. Insider note: Auditors rarely fail you for choosing a 10-character minimum over 12. They fail you when your written policy says one thing and your actual system configuration says another. Consistency between the policy document and the enforced setting matters far more than the specific number. Why Password Requirements Matter for SOC 2 Compliance Preventing Unauthorized Access Credentials are the front door. The 2025 Verizon DBIR found that stolen credentials remained the single most common initial access vector, appearing in 22% of breaches, and that brute force attacks against basic web applications nearly tripled year over year. Strong authentication controls are the difference between an attacker hitting a wall and an attacker walking straight in with a valid login. Reducing Data Breach Risk Weak or reused passwords feed credential stuffing, where attackers replay username and password pairs harvested from earlier breaches against your login pages. Reuse is rampant: research from Microsoft’s Digital Defense Report routinely finds that the majority of people reuse passwords across services. A single leaked password elsewhere becomes a working key to your environment unless your controls catch it. Demonstrating Logical Access Controls to Auditors SOC 2 is an attestation. It is not enough to be secure; you have to prove it with evidence. Well-designed password controls produce exactly the artifacts an auditor wants: configuration screenshots, enforcement logs, MFA reports, and access review records. Good controls and good evidence are two sides of the same coin, and an internal audit process that routinely collects this evidence makes the formal engagement significantly less stressful. Core SOC 2 Password Requirements Although SOC 2 prescribes nothing specific, a defensible password policy almost always addresses the same set of controls. These are what auditors expect to see and what your peers in compliance treat as table stakes. Minimum Password Length Length is the strongest single lever for password entropy, and modern guidance favors it over everything else. A common defensible baseline is at least 12 characters for standard user accounts, with longer requirements for service and admin accounts. NIST SP 800-63B recommends that verifiers support passwords up to 64 characters so that passphrases and password-manager output are never truncated, an important implementation detail that many teams overlook. Password Complexity and Blocklists Old-style complexity rules, one uppercase, one symbol, one number, are fading, and for good reason. They push users toward predictable substitutions without meaningfully raising entropy. The more effective control is a blocklist: screening new passwords against dictionaries of common and previously breached credentials and rejecting matches. Tools like Have I Been Pwned’s Pwned Passwords API make this straightforward to implement. This stops Password1! from sneaking through even though it technically satisfies a legacy complexity rule. Password Rotation and History Forced periodic rotation is the control most teams keep out of habit, and it is also the one that modern guidance most clearly discourages. Rotation pushes users toward predictable patterns, Spring2025 becoming Summer2025, without improving security in any measurable way. Password history settings, which prevent the immediate reuse of recent passwords, still have a place, but blind calendar-based expiry should be replaced with event-driven resets: force a change when there is evidence of compromise, not because the calendar says 90 days have passed. Account Lockout After Failed Login Attempts An account

Read more

Best Security Questionnaire Automation Software in 2026

A 300-question security review used to eat a full week of an analyst’s time. In 2026, the teams winning enterprise deals turn that same review around in an afternoon. The gap between those two outcomes is no longer about how many people you throw at the problem. It is about whether your answers live in a structured, searchable knowledge base that AI can draw from, or whether they are scattered across old spreadsheets, Slack threads, and the memory of one overworked security engineer. Security questionnaires have grown longer, more frequent, and more specific. Buyers send the Standardized Information Gathering (SIG) questionnaire, the Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ), the HECVAT for higher education, and an endless stream of custom forms, often through portals like OneTrust or ServiceNow that resist copy-paste. Each one stalls a deal until someone answers it. That is why questionnaire automation has shifted from a nice-to-have to a core part of how revenue and security teams operate. This guide reviews the nine tools worth evaluating this year, maps each to the team it actually fits, and shows you how to choose without falling for the inflated accuracy claims every vendor prints on its homepage. What Is Security Questionnaire Automation Software? Security questionnaire automation software uses AI, usually a large language model (LLM) paired with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), to draft answers to incoming vendor security assessments. Instead of an analyst hunting through a SOC 2 report or a policy document, the software matches each question to verified content in a central knowledge base and generates a cited response in seconds. The better platforms do more than draft text. They ingest a questionnaire in any format, route questions that need a human to the right subject matter expert, attach supporting evidence, track approvals, and submit the finished response back in the buyer’s original format or portal. The output is a workflow, not just a wall of generated answers. Key Benefits of Using Security Questionnaire Automation Software Faster Turnaround on Security Reviews Speed is the headline benefit and the one buyers feel first. Teams routinely report cutting response time from several days to a few hours, and concierge services advertise turnaround as short as twelve hours on standard questionnaires. When a security review is the last gate before a contract signs, shaving a week off it directly accelerates the sales cycle. Higher Accuracy and Consistency Manual answers drift. One analyst describes your encryption posture one way, another phrases it differently three months later, and a sharp-eyed buyer notices the inconsistency. A central knowledge base enforces one approved answer per question, so every response reflects the same source of truth. That consistency matters more than raw speed when a regulated buyer is reading closely. Reduced SME and InfoSec Bottlenecks The real constraint in most questionnaire programs is not typing. It is the queue of questions waiting on a subject matter expert who already has a day job. Automation handles the repetitive eighty percent automatically and surfaces only the genuinely novel questions for human input, which frees your InfoSec team to review rather than author. Stronger Audit Trails and Compliance Posture Every credible platform now logs who answered what, when, and from which source. That audit trail is useful for the questionnaire itself, but it also feeds your broader compliance posture. When an auditor asks how you keep customer-facing security claims accurate, a versioned, evidence-linked knowledge base is a far stronger answer than a folder of spreadsheets. Insider Note: Every vendor on this list advertises an accuracy figure, usually 92 to 96 percent. Read the denominator before you believe it. A 95 percent accuracy rate measured against questions the AI chose to answer is very different from 95 percent across an entire real questionnaire including the hard, company-specific ones. The number that matters is how many answers ship without a human rewrite, and only a pilot on your own questionnaires reveals that. What to Look for in the Best Security Questionnaire Automation Software AI Answer Accuracy and Grounded Retrieval The core engine should retrieve from your approved content and ground every answer in it, not generate plausible-sounding text from a general model. Grounded retrieval is what keeps the AI from inventing a control you do not actually have, which is the failure mode that destroys buyer trust instantly. Knowledge Base Management and Governance The knowledge base is the asset, not the AI. Look for version control, expiry dates on answers, owner assignment, and tools to retire stale content and merge duplicates. A platform that makes library maintenance painful will quietly rot, and a rotten library produces confident wrong answers. Support for Any Questionnaire Format (Excel, Word, PDF, Portals) Buyers send questionnaires in whatever format suits them. If the software handles a clean Excel file but chokes on a messy Word table or a scanned PDF, you will fall back to manual work for a meaningful share of your volume. Format coverage is unglamorous and decisive. Portal Auto-Fill (OneTrust, ServiceNow, ProcessUnity) Portal-based questionnaires are where most automation ROI leaks away. A tool that drafts beautiful answers but cannot push them into an OneTrust or ServiceNow GRC portal leaves you copy-pasting field by field. The strongest platforms offer a browser extension that completes portal forms directly. Important: When you scope a tool, ask specifically how it handles the portals your largest buyers use. Many platforms quietly degrade to a sidebar that helps you find content to paste manually rather than truly auto-filling. That distinction can be the difference between a one-hour review and a half-day of clicking. Evidence and Citation Backing In 2026, sophisticated buyers expect answers backed by source links: a policy, a control record, a test result. Citation backing is becoming the baseline for a buyer to trust an automated answer, and it doubles as your internal proof that the answer is defensible. Collaboration and Approval Workflows Questionnaires are cross-functional. Sales owns the deadline, security owns the truth, and legal sometimes owns the wording. The platform should assign sections, track ownership, and

Read more