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

Agentic AI Risk Management: Why Agentic Autonomy Needs Its Own Line in Your Risk Register

For the past two years, enterprise AI risk conversations have centered on a familiar set of concerns: model bias, hallucination, data privacy, and dependency on third-party models. These are real risks, and most organizations now run some version of a governance program to manage them. But something has shifted. Organizations are no longer just deploying AI that generates content for a human to review. They’re deploying AI that acts. Agents now plan multi-step tasks, call APIs, move data between systems, execute transactions, and coordinate with other agents, often with no human checkpoint in the loop. That shift deserves more than a footnote in the existing AI risk category. It deserves its own line in the risk register: Agentic Autonomy Risk. What Is Agentic AI Risk Management? Agentic AI risk management is the practice of identifying, assessing, and controlling the risks created when AI systems take autonomous action on an organization’s behalf. Where traditional AI governance evaluates outputs (accuracy, bias, privacy), agentic AI risk management governs what agents actually do: the tools they call, the permissions they inherit, and the downstream consequences of their actions. That distinction is the reason existing risk registers struggle with agents, and it’s worth unpacking properly. What Agentic AI Actually Changes Traditional AI systems, even generative ones, are advisory. They produce an output such as a summary, a prediction, a draft email, or a classification, and a human remains the last checkpoint before anything happens in the real world. Agentic AI removes that checkpoint. An agentic system doesn’t just produce an answer. It pursues a goal. It decides which tools to call and in what order, then executes those actions directly against live systems: submitting a purchase order, modifying a database record, sending an external communication, or orchestrating a set of sub-agents to complete a broader workflow. Agentic autonomy is the degree to which a system can plan and execute actions without a human explicitly authorizing each step. It’s a spectrum rather than a binary. At one end, the AI drafts and a human approves every action. At the other, the AI operates within broad guardrails and only escalates exceptions. The further an organization moves along that spectrum, the less its exposure looks like software risk and the more it looks like delegated authority risk, the kind normally reserved for employees, contractors, and automated financial systems. Why Existing Risk Registers Miss Agentic AI Risks Most enterprise risk registers were built on a reasonably safe assumption: a human initiates consequential actions, and the technology around that human behaves deterministically. Agentic AI breaks both halves of that assumption at once. A few specific gaps show up quickly when organizations try to map agentic deployments onto existing categories. Operational risk registers assume process failures come from human error or system outages, not from a system independently choosing an unanticipated path to a stated goal. Cybersecurity risk registers are built around unauthorized external access, while an agent problem usually involves an authorized system taking unauthorized internal actions with its own legitimate credentials. Model risk frameworks, borrowed largely from financial services, evaluate output accuracy rather than action consequences, which matters most when those actions can’t be reversed. And third-party risk assessments treat vendors as static entities, not as autonomous agents that might invoke other vendors’ agents on your behalf. See our guide to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework for how output-focused frameworks are structured. The result is a governance blind spot. An organization can be compliant against its AI policy, its cybersecurity policy, and its vendor risk policy, and still have nobody accountable for the specific risk of a system initiating a harmful sequence of actions before anyone notices. Defining Agentic Autonomy Risk Agentic Autonomy Risk is the risk that an AI system, operating with delegated decision-making and execution authority, takes actions that are harmful, non-compliant, or misaligned with organizational intent before adequate human oversight can intervene. Those actions might happen independently or in coordination with other agents. It deserves standing as a named category alongside cybersecurity, operational, legal, financial, and third-party risk because the loss event itself is different. The harm is a completed action in a live system, and it may be difficult or impossible to reverse. The accountability structure is different too: when an orchestrating agent delegates to sub-agents, responsibility for the outcome gets distributed in ways existing ownership models don’t cleanly capture. So is the detection window. Traditional controls assume a human is positioned to catch an error before it compounds, but an agent can execute dozens of dependent actions faster than any human review cycle. 7 Agentic AI Risk Scenarios to Put on Your Register 1. Unauthorized autonomous decision-making. An agent takes an action within its technical permissions but outside its intended business mandate. It adjusts pricing, approves a refund, or modifies a customer record, and no policy ever explicitly authorized that scenario. 2. Goal misalignment. The agent optimizes for a literal interpretation of its objective in a way that diverges from actual business intent, particularly under ambiguous or adversarial inputs. 3. Multi-agent interactions and cascading failures. One agent’s flawed output becomes another agent’s trusted input. A single error can propagate across a chain of agents faster than anyone can detect it, amplifying the original mistake instead of containing it. 4. Excessive tool or system permissions. Agents get provisioned with broad, standing access “to be safe” rather than scoped, least-privilege access tied to specific tasks. A productivity tool quietly becomes a privilege-escalation path. 5. Regulatory non-compliance. Autonomous actions trigger obligations under data protection, financial services, employment, or sector-specific regulation, and they execute without the compliance review a human-initiated process would normally receive. 6. Explainability and accountability gaps. An autonomous action causes harm and the organization can’t clearly reconstruct why the agent chose that path, or establish whether the business owner, the AI governance function, or the vendor is accountable for the outcome. 7. Autonomous third-party actions. A vendor’s agent, integrated into your environment, takes action on your behalf, or your agent acts against a

Read more

SOC 2 Penetration Testing Cost: 2026 Price Ranges

A SOC 2 penetration test costs between $1,000 and $30,000 for most companies. A typical SaaS scope, meaning one web application, its API layer, and the cloud infrastructure behind it, usually lands between $2,000 and $20,000. Early-stage startups with a narrow scope can get an auditor-accepted test for $1,000 to $8,000, while enterprises with multiple products and hybrid infrastructure regularly spend $20,000 to $50,000 or more. The spread is wide because “penetration test” covers everything from an automated scan with a cover page to weeks of manual testing by senior engineers. Auditors know the difference, and so do the enterprise customers who asked for your SOC 2 report in the first place. This guide breaks down what drives the price, where the hidden costs sit, and how to buy a test that holds up in fieldwork without overpaying for it. What Is SOC 2 Penetration Testing?​ A SOC 2 penetration test is a simulated attack on your systems, performed by a qualified security professional, scoped to the environment covered by your SOC 2 report. The tester tries to exploit real weaknesses the way an attacker would: broken access controls, injection flaws, misconfigured cloud services, exposed credentials. The output is a report your auditor reads as evidence that your security controls work in practice, not only on paper. That last part matters. A pentest bought for SOC 2 has a second audience beyond your security team. If the report doesn’t map findings to your audit scope, document its methodology, and show remediation, it fails the job you bought it for. We cover the full deliverable in our guide to what a SOC 2-ready VAPT report includes. How Penetration Testing Fits Into SOC 2 Compliance​ SOC 2 is built on the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria, and the Security category (the Common Criteria) applies to every report. Penetration testing is the standard way to satisfy CC7.1, which expects you to detect and monitor for new vulnerabilities, and it supports CC4.1, which covers ongoing evaluations of whether controls actually function. The AICPA’s points of focus explicitly mention vulnerability scanning and penetration testing as examples of how companies meet these criteria. In practice, the test slots into your audit timeline as an evidence item. Your auditor will ask for the report, check the test date against the audit period, and review how you handled the findings. Remediation is often scrutinized harder than the test itself, because it shows whether your vulnerability management process runs or merely exists. Is Penetration Testing Required for SOC 2?​ Strictly speaking, no. The Trust Services Criteria never use the word “mandatory” about penetration testing. You could theoretically satisfy CC7.1 with vulnerability scanning and strong monitoring alone. In reality, almost every auditor expects one, and skipping it invites two problems. First, your auditor may push back during fieldwork or add exceptions to the report. Second, the enterprise buyers reviewing your SOC 2 report increasingly look for pentest evidence specifically, and a report without it raises questions during procurement. Treat the test as effectively required and budget for it from the start of your SOC 2 compliance checklist. How Much Does SOC 2 Penetration Testing Cost? Typical Price Range for SOC 2 Pen Testing Most companies pay $1,000 to $30,000, with the median engagement for a SaaS business sitting around $12,000 to $15,000. Compliance-focused tests at the lower end of the market start around $1,000 to $5,000. Deep manual testing from established firms runs $10,000 to $30,000. Anything quoted below roughly $3,000 is almost certainly automated scanning packaged as a pentest, which auditors are getting better at spotting. Cost by Company Size (Startup, SMB, Enterprise) Company size is a proxy, not the driver. A 15-person company with three products and a legacy on-prem component will pay more than a 200-person company with one tightly scoped SaaS platform. Testers price effort, and effort follows scope. Cost by Test Type (Network, Web App, API, Cloud, Internal/External) Most SOC 2 engagements bundle two or three of these. The common package for a cloud-native SaaS company is web app plus API plus cloud configuration, which is why the $1,000 to $20,000 band comes up so often. Companies with office networks and internal systems in their audit scope add internal network testing, and the price climbs accordingly. Factors That Influence SOC 2 Penetration Testing Cost Scope and Number of Assets Tested Scope is the single biggest cost driver. Every additional application, API endpoint group, cloud account, or network segment adds testing hours. A pentest priced without a scoping call is a pentest priced on guesswork, and the guess usually favors the vendor. Complexity of Application or Infrastructure​ A simple CRUD app with two user roles tests quickly. A multi-tenant platform with role hierarchies, workflow engines, file processing, and third-party integrations takes far longer, because each of those features creates attack surface a tester has to work through manually. Authentication tiers matter especially: every distinct role needs testing for privilege escalation and cross-tenant data access. Testing Methodology (Black Box, Grey Box, White Box) Black box testing gives the tester nothing but a URL, grey box adds credentials and documentation, and white box adds source code and architecture diagrams. Grey box is the default for SOC 2 and usually the best value, since the tester spends time exploiting rather than discovering. White box costs more upfront but finds deeper issues. Black box sounds rigorous but often wastes paid hours on reconnaissance an attacker would run for free. Depth of Testing and Manual vs. Automated Approaches Automated scanning finds known vulnerability patterns. Manual testing finds business logic flaws, chained exploits, and authorization gaps that no scanner catches, and it’s the part auditors and security-literate customers actually value. The ratio of manual work to automation is the honest explanation for most price differences between two quotes covering the same scope. Tester Credentials and Firm Reputation Senior testers holding OSCP, GPEN, or CREST credentials bill higher rates, and firms with recognized methodologies charge a premium for the credibility their letterhead carries

Read more

LiteLLM Supply-Chain Breach: How to Check If You’re Exposed and What to Rotate

Two compromised versions of LiteLLM sat on PyPI for roughly 40 minutes on the morning of March 24, 2026. That window was enough to capture secrets from around 434,000 CI/CD pipeline runs across nearly 2,500 organizations, including AWS, Samsung, Cisco, Salesforce, Siemens, and Deloitte. In August, researchers at CloudSEK and Hudson Rock confirmed they had obtained the raw exfiltrated data: a 153GB archive containing 433,909 files of environment variables, cloud keys, Kubernetes secrets, and API tokens harvested live from running pipelines, as covered by Help Net Security’s reporting on the credential archive. If LiteLLM runs anywhere in your stack, or you touch any AI proxy infrastructure at all, you need answers to three things: whether you were exposed, what to rotate first, and whether the rotation you did back in March actually held. That last one matters more than it sounds, because “we rotated everything” has already burned at least one very large company. How the Breach Happened The attack didn’t start with LiteLLM. On March 19, 2026, a threat group called TeamPCP compromised the build pipeline of Trivy, a vulnerability scanner half the industry runs, and pushed a poisoned release. LiteLLM’s own CI pipeline ran Trivy, so the poisoned scanner had legitimate read access to the project’s runner environment. The attackers used that to steal LiteLLM’s PyPI publishing tokens and ship two malicious releases of their own: versions 1.82.7 and 1.82.8. KICS and the Telnyx Python SDK got hit in the same campaign. The payload design is the part worth studying. The malicious package dropped a .pth startup hook into site-packages, so the code ran the moment any Python interpreter started on the machine, whether or not anything imported LiteLLM. From there it harvested environment variables, read local credential files like .aws/credentials and .kube/config, tried to move laterally across Kubernetes clusters, and installed a systemd backdoor dressed up as a generic telemetry service. InfoQ’s coverage of the PyPI compromise put downloads of the compromised release above 40,000. For scale, LiteLLM normally gets downloaded around 3 million times a day. The exfiltration had a nasty fallback, too. According to CloudSEK, stolen data was encrypted and sent to a typosquatted domain, and when that failed, the malware created a public repository inside the victim’s own GitHub account and uploaded the loot as a release asset. Some companies were publishing their own secrets to the open internet and had no idea. Worth Knowing: The malicious code only existed in the PyPI artifacts. The GitHub source repository stayed clean the whole time, so a developer reviewing the code on GitHub saw nothing wrong. Source review isn’t artifact verification. If you don’t check that what the registry serves matches the upstream source, this class of attack is invisible to you. How to Check If You Were Exposed Three checks, from quickest to most involved. 1. Confirm whether the compromised versions ever ran The malicious versions went live on PyPI at 10:39 UTC on March 24, 2026 and got quarantined about 40 minutes later. The project’s advice: treat any install from that day before 16:00 UTC as suspect. Search your lockfiles, pip caches, SBOMs, and container image histories for 1.82.7 and 1.82.8. And check your internal artifact mirrors. An Artifactory or Nexus proxy that cached the bad release in March can keep serving it internally long after PyPI pulled it. Keep the .pth mechanism in mind when you scope this. The question isn’t “which applications import LiteLLM,” it’s “which machines had the package installed at all,” because every Python process on an infected machine triggered the payload. 2. Hunt for persistence Rotation is pointless if the attacker still has a foothold. Check developer machines, CI runners, and containers for unauthorized .pth files in site-packages and for suspicious systemd units, especially anything posing as a system telemetry service. And review activity from March 24 onward, not just the 40-minute window. Persistence is there so the access outlives the infection. Pro Tip: Don’t limit the persistence hunt to live machines. Base container images rebuilt in late March may have baked the payload into every image derived from them since. Scan your image registry for the affected LiteLLM versions and for unexpected .pth files, then trace which running workloads came from flagged images. 3. Check whether your secrets are in the dump Hudson Rock has published a domain lookup tool and is running ethical disclosures for affected organizations, and CloudSEK maintains a high-confidence victim list. Use them, but know their limits. Attribution in this dataset is genuinely hard. One dump with a siriusxm.com committer email actually traced, through its self-hosted GitLab endpoints, to AdsWizz, a SiriusXM subsidiary. And a large share of the dumps are generic pipeline configurations with no identifying domain, email, or server name at all. Absence from a victim list is not evidence of absence. If your pipelines ran the compromised versions, assume exposure no matter what a lookup tool tells you. What to Rotate, in What Order The guidance from both research teams is blunt: treat every secret the LiteLLM environment could reach as compromised. That covers secrets on disk, in memory, injected into CI jobs, and anything retrievable through instance metadata services. Work down by blast radius: Priority Credential type Why it comes first 1 Cloud IAM keys (AWS, GCP, Azure) Direct control of infrastructure, data stores, and billing. This is where attackers monetize fastest. 2 GitHub and GitLab PATs, package publishing tokens These let an attacker poison your releases and turn your company into the next link in the supply chain. 3 Kubernetes service account tokens and kubeconfigs Lateral movement across clusters was built into the payload, not a theoretical risk. 4 Database passwords and third-party API keys Dumped in plain text in the archive, often with no attribution, so nobody will warn you they leaked. 5 AI provider API keys Billing abuse, quota theft, and access to whatever data flows through your LLM routing layer. One word matters more than the rest of this article: revoke, don’t just rotate. That

Read more