API Security Verification

It checks an API control by control against a chosen standard — the OWASP API Security Top 10 and the OWASP ASVS — and reports, for each requirement, whether the control is met, partially met, or not met, with evidence. The output is a conformance matrix and a gap analysis, plus CVSS-rated findings for any gap that is also exploitable.

A penetration test hunts for exploitable weaknesses and proves impact; it tells you what an attacker could do. Verification checks every control in a standard and tells you where you conform and where you fall short — coverage you can prove. The two answer different questions, and teams often use verification for assurance and a penetration test for depth.

ASVS defines three levels of increasing rigor. A lower level suits an application with limited exposure, and a higher level suits one that handles sensitive data or is a likely target. We help you pick the level that matches the API's exposure and any contractual or regulatory requirement you are meeting.

The API specification (an OpenAPI or Postman collection), documentation of the roles and permissions, and test accounts for each role so we can verify authorization across boundaries. For the fullest verification we also use the configuration of the API gateway and the service. Verification leans on documentation, so the more complete it is, the more precise the matrix.

Verification is most accurate in grey-box or white-box mode, because confirming a control is present and correct is far more reliable with the specification, the roles, and the configuration in hand than by probing blind. We can work black-box where required, but the matrix is then limited to what is observable from outside.

A staging environment that mirrors production is preferred, so that verifying resource-consumption and business-flow controls cannot disturb live data or traffic. Where we verify against production, we agree on non-destructive boundaries and rate limits first.

Every gap carries its non-conformity against the standard, and a gap that is also exploitable is additionally scored with CVSS and its business impact. That way you can close conformance gaps for the audit while fixing the exploitable ones in order of real risk.

Yes. Re-verifying the affected controls after remediation is part of the engagement, so the conformance matrix you keep reflects the current state rather than the state at the first pass.