SERVICES

Cybersecurity for Business

Your applications and infrastructure face threats that evolve faster than most teams can respond. We strengthen your posture through penetration testing, code reviews, SDLC audits, and cybersecurity training for engineering teams under NIS 2, ISO 27001, and SOC 2.

Section 01 · Cybersecurity services

Where penetration testing services fit in cybersecurity assurance

Cybersecurity work spans four distinct activities: penetration testing of systems as they run, reviewing source code and architecture, assessing how the delivery process prevents defects, and carrying the risk decisions that follow. Each answers a different question, and combining them without intent produces a report nobody acts on.

Testing is scoped against public catalogues rather than a private methodology. Web and API assessments map findings to OWASP Top 10:2025 and the API Security Top 10; verification depth follows OWASP ASVS 5.0; adversary simulation references MITRE ATT&CK tactics. A finding therefore carries an identifier that auditors and other vendors already recognise.

Code and architecture review reach what runtime testing cannot: the design decision that makes a whole class of defect possible. That distinction matters when the same finding reappears across releases — at that point the fix belongs in the development process rather than in the individual ticket, and repeating the test will keep confirming the symptom.

Findings feed obligations that already apply. Evidence produced during a test supports ISO 27001 controls A.8.8 and A.8.29, the risk-management measures required by NIS 2 Article 21, and GDPR Article 32 — provided it is written to be reused rather than filed, which mostly means recording what was tested and when, not only what was found.

2025
Current OWASP Top 10 edition
10
Web application risk categories
17
ASVS 5.0 verification chapters
14
ATT&CK enterprise tactics
Risk-led
Basis for defining scope
Public catalogues used to scope and report

Findings are mapped to catalogues that auditors, customers, and other vendors already use. Each cell represents one entry; point at a catalogue to see representative entries. The counts are the full published sets, not a selection.

Web application risks (2025 edition)

10 of 68
  • A01:2025 Broken Access Control
  • A02:2025 Security Misconfiguration
  • A03:2025 Software Supply Chain Failures
  • A04:2025 Cryptographic Failures
  • A05:2025 Injection
  • A06:2025 Insecure Design
  • A07:2025 Authentication Failures
  • A08:2025 Software or Data Integrity Failures
  • A09:2025 Security Logging and Alerting Failures
  • A10:2025 Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions
Section 02 · Engagement drivers

What triggers a security engagement

Security work is rarely commissioned because a team wanted reassurance. It is triggered by something with a date attached: an enterprise customer's security questionnaire before contract signature, supervisory expectations for entities that have been in NIS 2 scope since October 2024, a pending release of a system handling payments or health data, a test report that has gone stale in a procurement portal, or an incident that made the existing control set look optimistic.

  1. 01 Customer security review Enterprise buyers require a current test report and remediation evidence before contract or renewal. 5
  2. 02 Regulatory obligation NIS 2 Article 21 and GDPR Article 32 expect controls that have been tested, not assumed. 4
  3. 03 Release and change risk New internet-facing surface and architectural change outpace the control set that covered the old design. 4
  4. 04 Recurring defect patterns The same finding across releases points at the development process rather than the ticket. 3
  5. 05 Incident follow-up Post-incident review turns a single event into a durable control decision. 2
Indicative strength on a 1–5 scale, based on Up Secure engagement patterns.
SaaS and platform vendors

Buyers ask for a current penetration test report and remediation evidence during vendor review; a stale report stalls the deal.

Software houses and integrators

Client contracts flow down testing and secure-development obligations that the delivery team has to evidence, not merely assert.

NIS 2 essential and important entities

Article 21 requires policies for assessing whether risk-management measures actually work, and management bodies are accountable for approving them.

Section 03 · Security coverage

Where each service contributes

Testing, engineering review, and governance work attach at different points of the same cycle. Tests validate what is observable, reviews explain the cause, and governance work keeps ownership and evidence alive after remediation. The services that deliver each area are listed further down.

Cybersecurity service coverage across an assurance cycle
ScopeTestRemediateAssure
Assessment & testing
Web application penetration testing
Infrastructure and API testing
Security maturity audit
Engineering review
Secure source code review
Architecture and threat review
Secure SDLC audit
Governance & risk
Risk assessment and treatment
Vendor risk assessment
Security leadership (vCISO)
Enablement
Secure coding and awareness training
Section 04 · Service portfolio

Assurance depth and delivery models

The catalogue below groups the available services by expertise: point-in-time audits and assessments, advisory work, embedded specialist roles, and recurring managed services. The distinction matters when scoping, because a one-off test and a continuing engagement produce different kinds of evidence.

Audits and Assessments

Systematic compliance audits, security assessments, and maturity evaluations across GDPR, ISO 27001, NIS 2, SOC 2, and AI Act frameworks for organizations in regulated industries.

Secure Source Code Review

SAST and manual code review for Python/Django apps. Findings mapped to OWASP Top 10 and CWE with fix guidance.

NIS 2 DirectiveISO 27001
Read more

Web Application Penetration Testing

Web app penetration testing with OWASP methodology. Severity-scored findings and remediation guidance for Python/Django.

NIS 2 DirectiveISO 27001SOC 2
Read more

SOC 2 Compliance Services

SOC 2 compliance services — readiness assessment, controls design, evidence collection, and Type I/II audit support.

SOC 2
Read more

Consultancy and Advisory

Strategic consultancy and implementation advisory across GDPR, AI Act, ISO 27001, NIS 2, and cybersecurity for organizations building compliance programs or making security architecture decisions.

Secure Source Code Review

SAST and manual code review for Python/Django apps. Findings mapped to OWASP Top 10 and CWE with fix guidance.

NIS 2 DirectiveISO 27001
Read more

Security and Privacy Architecture Review

Security and privacy architecture review for SaaS applications — threat modeling, data flow analysis, and design recommendations.

NIS 2 DirectiveGDPRISO 27001
Read more

Cybersecurity and Data Protection Risk Assessment

Combined cybersecurity and data protection risk assessment with risk register, treatment plan, and DPIA support.

NIS 2 DirectiveGDPRISO 27001SOC 2
Read more

US Software Review for EU Regulatory Compliance

Review of US-built software against EU privacy and cybersecurity regulations — GDPR, NIS 2, and AI Act compliance.

AI ActNIS 2 DirectiveGDPR
Read more

ISO 27001 Consulting

ISO 27001 consulting — gap analysis, ISMS design, risk assessment, and certification readiness for SaaS companies.

NIS 2 DirectiveISO 27001
Read more

SOC 2 Compliance Services

SOC 2 compliance services — readiness assessment, controls design, evidence collection, and Type I/II audit support.

SOC 2
Read more

NIS2 Compliance Consulting

NIS2 compliance consulting — gap analysis, governance framework, incident response, and supply chain security.

NIS 2 DirectiveISO 27001
Read more

Secure SDLC Consulting

Secure SDLC consulting — embedding security gates, threat modeling, and DevSecOps practices into your development pipeline.

NIS 2 DirectiveGDPRISO 27001
Read more

Cybersecurity Consulting

Cybersecurity consulting — strategy, risk management, incident response, and compliance across ISO 27001, NIS 2, and SOC 2.

Read more

Role Outsourcing

Dedicated specialist roles including DPO, Privacy Engineer, Security Engineer, vCISO, and AI Compliance Officer available on a fractional or full-time outsourced basis.

Virtual CISO (vCISO) Services

Fractional vCISO providing security strategy, risk management, and compliance oversight for growing SaaS teams.

NIS 2 DirectiveISO 27001SOC 2
Read more

Security Engineer Role Outsourcing

Outsourced Security Engineer embedding secure coding, DevSecOps, and vulnerability management into your team.

NIS 2 Directive
Read more

Process Outsourcing and Managed Services

Ongoing risk assessments, vendor due diligence programs, and compliance monitoring delivered as managed services with defined service levels and regular reporting cadences.

Cybersecurity and Data Protection Risk Assessment

Combined cybersecurity and data protection risk assessment with risk register, treatment plan, and DPIA support.

NIS 2 DirectiveGDPRISO 27001SOC 2
Read more

Vendor Risk Assessment

Third-party vendor risk assessment for cybersecurity, data protection, and supply chain security compliance.

NIS 2 DirectiveGDPRISO 27001SOC 2
Read more
Start the conversation

Scope security testing against the decision it has to inform.

The first conversation identifies what needs evidence — a release, an exposed surface, a customer questionnaire, a defect that keeps returning — and then which systems, code, and delivery practices belong in scope. That order avoids the most common outcome: a broad test that answers a question nobody asked.

Request a quote Book a consultation
Why Up Secure
Findings with public identifiers Reports map to OWASP Top 10:2025, the API Security Top 10 and ATT&CK, so your other vendors and auditors already recognise them.
Root cause, not only symptom Testing shows what is exploitable; code and architecture review show why it was possible and where the fix belongs.
Evidence that serves the audit The same report supports ISO 27001 A.8.29, the NIS 2 Article 21 measures, and GDPR Article 32.
Section 05 · Frequently asked

Questions asked before a security engagement is scoped

Frequently asked questions

Which OWASP Top 10 edition do reports use?
Reports map to OWASP Top 10:2025, which was announced in November 2025 and finalised in January 2026. That edition restructured the list: software supply chain failures became a category of their own at A03, mishandling of exceptional conditions entered at A10, and server-side request forgery was absorbed into broken access control. Where a compliance programme still references the 2021 edition, findings carry both identifiers so the mapping stays traceable.
How do penetration testing, code review, and an SDLC audit differ?
Penetration testing examines exploitable behaviour in a running target and cannot see code paths unreachable from outside. Source-code review inspects the implementation and reaches root causes that runtime testing misses. A secure SDLC audit evaluates the process itself — how requirements, review, testing, and release controls stop the defect from being written again. Choosing one when the question calls for another is the most common scoping error.
Does a security assessment produce certification?
No. Testing produces evidence, not attestation. A report supports ISO 27001 control A.8.29 on security testing in development and acceptance, the risk-management measures required by NIS 2 Article 21, GDPR Article 32, and customer assurance questionnaires. The certification decision itself belongs to an accredited certification body, and a SOC 2 opinion to a licensed CPA firm.
How often should testing be repeated?
Frequency should follow change and exposure rather than the calendar. Significant releases, architectural changes, new internet-facing surface, a change of hosting or identity provider, and incidents are the usual triggers. Contracts and insurers often specify an annual test as a floor; that floor is rarely sufficient on its own for a system that ships weekly.
What does a report contain beyond a list of findings?
Each finding carries a reproduction path, the affected component, a severity rating with the reasoning behind it, and a remediation direction. Findings that share a cause are grouped so the fix can be made once. The report also states what was tested and what was not, because the untested boundary is what an auditor or customer will ask about first.
Can technical testing and governance work be combined?
Yes, and keeping the outputs separate is what makes it work. A combined scope translates findings into risk ownership, control changes, and evidence requirements while the technical validation stays independent of the management decision. The alternative — one team both selecting controls and assessing its own work — is precisely what an independent audit function exists to prevent.