We find what your scanner reports, and the part it quietly missed.
ProsperaCyber runs AI agents that behave like penetration testers — they explore, form a hypothesis, and test it against your systems. Every finding arrives with the evidence that proves it, and every gap we could not reach is written down rather than left as silence.
Authorised testing only · Evidence retained per engagement · KSA-based, regionally aware
Three disciplines that answer three different questions
Most vendors sell one and imply the others. These are separate problems, and we treat them that way.
Penetration Testing
“Can someone actually break in?” Goal-driven offensive testing against your web, API and cloud estate — executed by AI agents and reviewed by senior engineers before anything reaches you.
- Exploit-verified, not signature-guessed
- Attack chains, not isolated alerts
- Retest included on every engagement
External Attack Surface Management
“What do we even own?” Continuous discovery of the domains, hosts, ports, services and forgotten applications that face the internet under your name — including the ones no one told you about.
- Continuous discovery, not an annual snapshot
- Shadow IT and abandoned estate surfaced
- Change alerting on new exposure
Threat Modelling
“Where should we spend next?” A structured map of what was proven exploitable, what was tested and held, and — crucially — what could not be reached at all, so absence of findings is never mistaken for safety.
- STRIDE-aligned, evidence-linked
- Explicit, itemised blind spots
- Prioritised remediation sequencing
How each service actually works
Penetration Testing
A conventional test is a consultant with a time budget. Ours is a fleet of autonomous agents that work the estate in parallel — enumerating, forming hypotheses, and proving or disproving each one with a real request — with senior engineers steering scope and signing off every finding.
The difference shows in what gets reported. An agent that can send a request does not need to guess whether an IDOR is exploitable; it replays the call with another identity and records the response. That evidence travels with the finding into your ticketing system.
- Web, API & cloud — authenticated and unauthenticated paths
- Business-logic testing — the class scanners cannot express
- Chain composition — three mediums that together make a critical
- Safe by construction — read-only verification by default; destructive actions require written authorisation
- Free retest — we re-run the exact reproduction after your fix
External Attack Surface Management
Breaches rarely start at the front door you defended. They start at the staging box someone stood up two years ago, the admin panel on a non-standard port, the vendor product installed and forgotten.
Our EASM continuously maps everything reachable under your name — certificate transparency, DNS permutation, port and service discovery, virtual-host enumeration, historical archives — and tells you the moment the picture changes.
- Continuous, not annual — your estate changes weekly; so does the map
- Ownership attribution — which asset belongs to which team
- Non-standard ports — services on 5000, 5678, 8090 that sweeps miss
- Third-party products — installed software separated from your own code
- Change alerts — new exposure notified, not discovered next quarter
Threat Modelling
A findings list tells you what broke. A threat model tells you what it means and what to do next. Ours separates three states that a normal report renders identically — as silence:
- Proven — we exploited it, here is the evidence
- Tested and held — we attacked it and it withstood the attempt
- Not reached — and precisely why, so you can decide whether it matters
That third category is the one the industry hides. A clean report from an unauthenticated scan of an authenticated application is not assurance — it is an untested application. We say so, in writing, on the page.
Each entry is STRIDE-aligned and linked to the finding evidence beneath it, so engineering can act without a translation meeting.
AI that tests. Engineers who judge.
Automation without judgement produces noise. Judgement without automation produces gaps. Our platform is built on the assumption that you need both, and that each should do only what it is genuinely good at.
Dynamic testing (DAST), driven by agents
Traditional DAST fires payloads at endpoints and pattern-matches the response. Ours runs an agent with a real toolchain that decides what to try next based on what it just learned — the way a tester does.
- Hypothesis → probe → verdict, recorded per attempt
- Authenticated flows, multi-step business logic
- Chained reasoning across separate findings
- Every claim backed by a request and response
Static analysis (SAST) where it belongs
We read the code an attacker can read — client-side bundles, deobfuscated and analysed for logic the server may not enforce — then hand every candidate to the dynamic layer to confirm or kill.
- Client-side bundle recovery and deobfuscation
- Secrets, endpoints and access logic extraction
- Third-party code separated from yours
- Nothing reported as a vulnerability until tested
The value is in what we refuse to do
Anyone can lengthen a findings list. The hard part is being trustworthy about it.
We do not report what we cannot prove
A pattern that looks like an IDOR is not a finding. If the agent cannot demonstrate the impact with a real request, it is recorded as a lead for review — not sent to your engineers as a vulnerability.
We do not let coverage gaps look like safety
If we could not reach part of your estate, the report says so, names the part, and gives the reason. An empty section is the most dangerous thing a security report can contain.
We do not bill your team for our noise
Triage time is your real cost. Every hour your engineers spend disproving a false positive is an hour not spent fixing something real — so we absorb that work before delivery, not after.
“The question a board asks is not ‘how many findings’. It is ‘are we exposed, and how do you know’. A report that cannot answer the second half is not worth the first.”
— ProsperaCyber engagement principle
- Evidence retained for every finding, exportable for audit and regulator review
- Reproduction steps your developers can run themselves
- Free retest so “fixed” is verified, not assumed
- Regional context — KSA-based, aligned to local regulatory expectations
- Named engineers — you know who reviewed your estate
From scoping call to verified fix
A first engagement typically runs two to three weeks end to end. Continuous programmes run in the background from day one.
Scope & authorisation
We agree targets, exclusions, testing windows and rules of engagement in writing. Nothing is touched before authorisation is signed.
Discovery
Full external surface mapping. You receive the asset inventory before testing begins — often the first surprise of the engagement.
Automated offensive testing
Agents work the estate in parallel, forming and testing hypotheses. Critical findings are escalated within 48 hours, not held for the report.
Expert review
Senior engineers validate every finding, remove noise, assess business impact and compose the attack chains.
Delivery & walkthrough
Report, threat model and evidence pack, plus a live session with your engineering and leadership teams.
Retest
After remediation we re-run the exact reproductions and issue a closure statement you can hand to auditors.
Three ways to work with us
Pricing follows a scoping call, because a fair price depends on the size of the estate — not on how much you appear able to pay. Every engagement is quoted with a fixed scope and a fixed price before any work begins.
- Full external attack surface discovery
- Penetration test of agreed scope
- Threat model with declared blind spots
- Evidence pack for audit
- Executive & technical report
- Delivery walkthrough session
- One free retest within 60 days
- Everything in Per Assessment
- Continuous EASM with change alerting
- Monthly testing cycle, not annual
- New-exposure notification within 24h
- Unlimited retests
- Living threat model, always current
- Quarterly executive briefing
- Named engineer as your point of contact
- Everything in Continuous
- Internal & authenticated testing
- Red team & assumed-breach scenarios
- Cloud configuration & identity review
- Source-assisted (grey/white-box) review
- M&A and vendor due diligence
- Incident-driven rapid assessment
- Custom SLAs & regulatory reporting
| Capability | Per Assessment | Continuous | Custom |
|---|---|---|---|
| External attack surface discovery | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Penetration testing | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Threat model with declared blind spots | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Testing frequency | Once | Monthly | Defined with you |
| Surface monitoring | — | Continuous | Continuous |
| Retests | 1 included | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Critical finding SLA | 48 hours | 24 hours | Custom |
| Authenticated / internal testing | — | Add-on | ✓ |
| Red team & assumed breach | — | — | ✓ |
| Source-assisted review | — | — | ✓ |
| Named engineer | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Executive briefing | On delivery | Quarterly | Custom |
Prices shown in USD and exclude VAT. SAR invoicing available. Multi-year and multi-entity arrangements are discounted — ask us.
What clients ask before signing
If AI does the testing, what am I paying experts for?
Judgement. The agents are excellent at breadth, persistence and reproduction — they will try things at a scale and consistency no human sustains. What they cannot do is decide whether a finding matters to your business, whether a chain is genuinely reachable, or whether a result is worth your engineers' attention. Every finding is reviewed and signed off by a senior engineer before it reaches you. You are paying for the filter, not the volume.
Will this disrupt production?
Verification is read-only by default. Anything with a side effect — deletion, payment, state change — requires explicit written authorisation and is executed in an agreed window, or not at all. We agree exclusions before testing begins and honour them absolutely.
How is this different from a vulnerability scanner subscription?
A scanner tells you what patterns it matched. We tell you what we proved, what we tested that held, and what we could not reach. A scanner cannot compose two mediums into a critical, cannot exercise business logic, and — most importantly — cannot tell you where its own coverage failed.
What do you need from us to start?
A list of domains you believe you own, written authorisation to test them, and a technical point of contact. That is enough for an external engagement. Authenticated and internal testing needs credentials and a short onboarding call.
Who owns the findings and the evidence?
You do. Evidence is retained for the agreed retention period so you can hand it to auditors or regulators, and is deleted on request. We never use client data to train models or as marketing material without explicit written permission.
Can you work alongside our existing provider?
Yes, and it is often the best way to start. Run us in parallel for one cycle and compare what each side found, missed, and declared. We are comfortable being measured that way.
Let's start with your attack surface
Tell us what you own and we will show you what the internet sees. No obligation, no pressure, and no sales engineer reading from a deck.
- Response within one business day
- Scoping call with an engineer, not a salesperson
- Written proposal with fixed scope and price
- NDA available before any technical discussion
Email us
Send us your domains and what you need answered, and we will reply within one business day. An NDA can be in place before any technical detail is exchanged.
Please do not include credentials or sensitive data in your first message.
Most organisations discover assets they forgot they owned.
Find out what yours looks like from the outside.