Cybersecurity & Penetration
Testing for Mid-Market Enterprises

A scanner report is a list of findings, not a security posture. Our testers work your applications, APIs, cloud configuration and network the way an attacker would, then hand you something you can act on: each finding with a reproduction path, a real severity based on your exposure, and a remediation your engineers can implement — plus retesting once they have.

The problem

A scan report is not a security posture

Automated tooling produces hundreds of findings ranked by generic severity, with no view of what's actually reachable in your environment. Teams then spend the quarter triaging noise while the genuinely exploitable path stays open. We test the way an attacker would, and hand you findings you can act on in order.

Tested the wayattackers work

Severity based onyour exposure

Retested afteryou've fixed it

Real exploitation.Actionable findings.

Volume

isn't the same as risk

A scanner can't tell which finding is reachable from the internet, chains with another, or sits behind a control that already mitigates it.

Severity

depends on your environment

The same CVE can be critical in one architecture and irrelevant in another. Generic ratings send teams to fix the wrong thing first.

Our fix

reproduce, rank, then retest

Every finding arrives with the steps to reproduce it, a severity based on your real exposure, and a retest once your engineers have remediated.

CYBERSECURITY & PENETRATION TESTING

Full-Scope Penetration Testing

External and internal testing run to PTES, chaining findings the way an attacker would rather than listing them in isolation, with rules of engagement agreed before we start.

Web Application Security

Authenticated testing against OWASP ASVS and the Top 10, covering the business-logic and access-control flaws scanners miss, then retested once your team has remediated.

Network & Infrastructure

External and internal network testing with firewall and segmentation review, and controlled exploitation to confirm which exposures are genuinely reachable.

Cloud Security Assessment

Configuration and IAM review across AWS, Azure and GCP: public exposure, over-broad roles, unencrypted storage and gaps in logging, ranked by what an attacker could reach.

Secure Code Review

Manual review alongside SAST across your repositories, catching injection points, broken authorisation and unsafe secret handling while a fix is still a pull request.

Incident Response & Forensics

Containment first, then log and host forensics to establish what was accessed and how, with evidence preserved so the account of the incident stands up afterwards.

What changes

Outcomes we hold ourselves to

Security work is easy to claim and hard to prove, so these are commitments about what you receive and how we work — not predictions about attacks that didn't happen.

Every finding

with a reproduction path

Written so your engineers can trigger it themselves, confirm the fix, and not rely on taking our word for it.

Ranked by

your real exposure

Severity reflects reachability and impact in your architecture, so the remediation list is already in the right order.

Retest included

once you've remediated

We verify the fixes rather than closing the engagement at the report, because an unverified fix is an assumption.

Same week

escalation on critical findings

Anything critical is raised as soon as we confirm it, not held back for the final report.

How we work

Three ways to start

The right engagement depends on whether you need a point-in-time assessment, evidence for a customer or auditor, or continuous coverage as you ship. Moving between them is normal.

Full-scope penetration test

For teams needing broad coverage plus a report that stands up to external review.

Applications, APIs, cloud configuration and network in scope
Executive summary alongside the technical detail
Report suitable for customers, insurers and auditors

Timeline

3–6 weeks, fixed scope

Best for

Compliance or customer assurance

Trust & compliance

Built to survive an audit

Testing your systems means being trusted with access to them. How we handle that access, and the evidence we leave behind, matters as much as the findings.

Aligned to

OWASP ASVS

PTES

GDPR

SOC 2

ISO 27001

PCI DSS

Rules of engagement in writing

Scope, testing windows, escalation contacts and explicitly out-of-bounds systems agreed and signed before any testing begins.

Recognised methodology

Testing follows established methodologies — OWASP ASVS for applications, PTES for infrastructure — so coverage is demonstrable rather than assertable.

Your data stays yours

Findings and any data encountered are handled under NDA, transferred over encrypted channels, and destroyed on a schedule you agree.

Evidence auditors accept

Reports structured to support SOC 2, ISO 27001 and PCI DSS evidence requirements, including the retest confirming remediation.

Common questions

The things people usually ask us

Still have a question?Tell us what you’re weighing up and we’ll come back with a straight answer — usually inside a business day.

Talk to the team

It's the right thing to worry about, and it's why scope and method are agreed in writing first. Anything genuinely disruptive — denial-of-service style testing, destructive payloads — is excluded unless you specifically ask for it in an environment where that's safe. Testing windows are yours to set, and we stop immediately if you call it.

Production tells you the truth; staging is safer. In practice we usually test production for anything read-only and reconnaissance-based, and move to staging for tests that write data or carry real risk. What matters is that staging genuinely mirrors production — a stale copy produces findings that don't apply and misses ones that do.

A report with each finding, its severity in your context, the steps to reproduce it, and a remediation your engineers can implement — plus an executive summary that a non-technical reader can act on. Critical findings are escalated as soon as we confirm them rather than held for the report. Then we retest once you've fixed things.

Annually is the common baseline, and it's what most compliance frameworks expect. But if you deploy weekly, an annual test leaves most of your changes untested — that's the case for continuous coverage. Either way, test after any significant architectural change rather than waiting for the date to come round.

Yes, but that's incident response rather than a penetration test, and the priority order is different — containment and preserving evidence come before finding every weakness. Contact us and say that explicitly so we treat it as urgent rather than scheduling an assessment.

Building intelligent digital products across AI, security, and cloud.

Our Services

Our Products

Useful Links

+966 50 236 8268

info@bmi.com