Before testing
Define scope, accounts, environments, excluded techniques, emergency contacts, reporting cadence, and evidence-handling expectations.
Approach
A disciplined engagement from scope to retest.
Paravit's process is built to find real risk, avoid operational surprises, and leave teams with evidence they can use.
ScopeAssets, roles, limits, timeline
MapAttack surface and workflows
TestManual exploitation and validation
ReportRisk, evidence, remediation
RetestClosure and residual risk
Engagement model
Structured enough to be safe. Flexible enough to find depth.
Each engagement starts with written rules of engagement and ends with a readout that separates urgent exploitation paths from ordinary hardening work.
During testing
Combine manual testing with targeted tools, escalate critical issues quickly, and keep work inside agreed operational boundaries.
After testing
Deliver findings, walk through impact and fixes, support remediation questions, and retest corrected issues when included in scope.
Testing posture
The report should make risk easier to decide, not harder.
Severity is contextual
Risk is not assigned by template alone. Severity considers exploitability, affected data, attacker position, compensating controls, and business impact.
Evidence is practical
Findings are documented with enough detail for engineers to reproduce and fix them without exposing unnecessary sensitive data.
Noise is filtered
Informational observations are separated from exploitable findings so remediation work starts with the risks that deserve attention.
Communication is direct
Critical issues are raised during the engagement. The final report should not be the first time the team hears about urgent exposure.