20 checks we wrote,
plus 15 open-source scanners
Semgrep, Trivy, Nuclei, sqlmap and gitleaks are among the sensors, alongside 20 checks we wrote ourselves for what off-the-shelf tools skip. 17 specialist agents coordinate them in an 8-phase pipeline, then cross-pollinate findings to build attack chains no single tool would catch. Against a public vulnerable-by-design benchmark it built six working attack chains, where Burp Pro built none.
Request Security AssessmentWhat we test
Eight kinds of security testing, in plain words. The short codes are what your engineers will call them. One engagement can cover all eight, or only the ones your product needs.
Code review
We read your source code before it runs and flag the patterns that lead to break-ins.
Example: A search box that pastes the user's text straight into a database query, so a crafted search reads other customers' records.
You get: Each issue with file and line, severity and a suggested fix.
Third-party libraries
We check every open-source library and container you ship for publicly known security holes.
Example: An old logging or image library with a flaw attackers already scan the internet for.
You get: The vulnerable parts, the version to upgrade to, and a full parts list (SBOM).
Leaked passwords and keys
We search your code and its full history for passwords, API keys and tokens left behind.
Example: A payment API key committed two years ago and deleted later, still readable in git history.
You get: Where each secret is and what kind it is. We never print the secret itself.
Live attack testing
We attack the running site or API from the outside, the way a real attacker would, logged in or not.
Example: A forgotten admin page or backup file reachable from the internet.
You get: Each issue with the exact request that proved it and how to fix it.
Access and business rules
We test whether user A can see or change user B's data, and whether your business rules can be bent.
Example: Changing an ID in the URL shows another company's invoice, or one coupon applied twice at the same moment.
You get: Confirmed findings with step-by-step proof, joined into attack chains.
Mobile apps
We take your Android or iOS build apart and check what it stores, sends and exposes.
Example: A test server address or API key hardcoded in the app, or data stored unencrypted on the phone.
You get: Findings from the app file you upload (APK, AAB or IPA).
Infrastructure code
When we scan your source code, we also check your Terraform and deployment files for risky settings.
Example: A storage bucket or database defined as public in the code that builds it.
You get: The misconfigured resource, the file it lives in, and the safe setting.
AWS and Kubernetes setup
We review who and what can reach what in your cloud: roles, deploy permissions, exposed keys and risky defaults.
Example: Every service sharing one all-powerful role, so one compromised pod can reach everything.
You get: Each risky permission or setting, ranked, with the narrower version to apply.
On top of the open-source scanners, 20 checks we wrote ourselves cover what off-the-shelf tools miss, from race conditions in checkout to prompt injection in chatbot features. Every critical finding is checked by a person before it reaches your report.
Specialist agents
Each agent focuses on a specific attack class. They run in parallel, share findings, and build multi-step attack chains that individual tools would never detect.
Two more run only when they apply: Mobile Security on an APK or IPA target, and SOC2 Compliance when a SOC 2 readiness review is requested. That is 19 agents on a scan that needs both.
What makes this different
| Capability | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
|
SPEC-01
Cross-Pollination
|
When one agent finds something, it tells related agents to focus there. SCA finds vulnerable JWT library → DAST agent targets auth endpoints using that library. | SCA CVE → DAST focus |
|
SPEC-02
Attack Chains
|
Individual findings are medium severity. Combined, they're critical. The toolkit links SCA + DAST + Auth findings into full exploitation paths. On the public benchmark it found 6 attack chains; Burp Pro found 0. | JWT vuln + /api/refresh → admin |
|
SPEC-03
Coverage Audit
|
Every scan maps findings to OWASP Top 10 categories. If any category has zero coverage, gap-fill scans run before the final report. | Gap: SSRF → run nuclei ssrf |
|
SPEC-04
Human Review
|
The agents find and correlate. People verify and prioritize. Every critical finding is manually validated before it appears in your report. | 14 found → 9 confirmed by a person |
How a scan runs
The open-source scanners we run
See it in action
We ran BetterQA against a public vulnerable-by-design benchmark application, the same target Escape used to compare DAST scanners. We came away with 27 findings, 6 attack chains, and credentials the other scanners missed.
Read the benchmarkReady for a security assessment?
Get a comprehensive security scan with attack chain analysis and OWASP coverage audit.
Request Assessment