Web Security Audit

WHOAMI’s Web Security Audit service is a business‑aware web application and API security assessment. We identify relevant weaknesses, explain their operational impact (data, fraud, continuity, reputation), and deliver a prioritized improvement plan. This is a technical audit with judgment—not an automated list without context.

Web Security Audit Service in Spain

WHOAMI provides web security audits in Spain for organizations operating critical portals, e‑commerce, backoffices, or exposed APIs. The goal is to reduce risk, improve security posture, and produce defensible evidence for leadership, internal audits, and engineering teams.

For companies and product teams

This assessment is designed for teams shipping and operating web systems where security issues are not “just technical”: they translate into data exposure, feature abuse, fraud, downtime, or loss of customer trust. That’s why we focus on consequences and realistic remediation decisions.

Objective and scope (what’s in, what’s out)

The objective is to identify weaknesses affecting:

• Confidentiality (data exposure)
• Integrity (unauthorized actions, fraud, manipulation)
• Availability (resilience, degradation, abuse)
• Traceability (evidence and response readiness)

Scope is defined explicitly to avoid ambiguity:

• Web application: flows, roles, permissions, internal/admin panels
• APIs: endpoints, authorization, validations, abuse scenarios
• Authentication and session: login, MFA if applicable, expiry, cookies, renewal
• Integrations: SSO, payment providers, third parties, internal services
• Configuration: headers, CORS, cookies, TLS, deployment security

What we validate (and why it matters)

A real web audit translates controls into business impact. Examples:

• Authorization and permissions: reduces improper access to data and critical actions (fraud, abuse, exposure)
• Session handling: minimizes unwanted persistence and the likelihood of unauthorized access through poor session controls
• Validation and business rules: prevents inconsistencies, parameter manipulation, and logic flaws with real impact
• Anti‑abuse controls: improves resilience against automation, scraping, enumeration, and abnormal usage
• Integrations: avoids risk amplification through third parties or poorly bounded flows
• Web hardening: reduces exposure from common misconfigurations

Web security audit vs automated scanners

Automated tools can surface signals, but an audit adds:

• Validation (less noise, fewer false positives)
• Context (what is affected and why it matters)
• Prioritization (what to fix first to reduce risk)
• Coverage for logic, permissions, and integrations scanners don’t understand

Web Security Audit vs Web Pentesting

They are related, but not the same:

• Audit: analytical assessment focused on weaknesses, risk, evidence, and remediation planning
• Pentesting: more focused on demonstrating impact with agreed rules and technical evidence

If you need a more intrusive validation for a critical flow, it typically fits Internal & External Pentesting, keeping objectives and scope clearly separated.

Typical engagement modes (black box / grey box / white box)

We select the mode based on goals, time, and team maturity:

• Black box: minimal starting information; useful to measure exposure from the outside
• Grey box: access + test roles; often best value for time/cost
• White box: documentation + team support; ideal for complex or multi‑tenant platforms

Deliverables (what you receive)

• Executive report for leadership: risks, impact, recommended decisions
• Technical report with evidence, context, and actionable remediation guidance
• Prioritization by risk and operational impact (quick wins vs structural work)
• Suggested backlog for engineering (tickets / grouped actions)
• Results review session to align a remediation plan
• Follow‑up review (optional) to confirm fixes on critical findings

What we need to start

To keep the work efficient and low‑friction, we typically ask for:

• Asset list and scope (domains, apps, APIs, exclusions)
• Test roles (standard user + elevated roles if applicable)
• Critical flows (login, checkout, data changes, admin operations)
• Preferred environment: staging/replica; otherwise coordinated windows

How we prioritize (defensible criteria)

Prioritization is not “generic severity”: it is aligned to your context:

• Impact: data, money, continuity, reputation, compliance
• Exposure: surface, roles affected, integrations
• Likelihood: friction, existing controls, exploitability
• Cost/benefit: quick wins vs structural changes

If helpful for your process, we can reference standard scoring (e.g., CVSS) as support—but decisions remain business‑aligned.

Timelines and planning (no fluff)

Duration depends on scope and complexity. As a rough guideline:

• Small application (few flows, simple roles): typically 1–2 weeks
• Medium application (multiple areas + APIs): typically 2–4 weeks
• Complex platform (multi‑tenant, many integrations): phased approach by objectives

We prefer a well‑scoped, actionable audit over an “everything” scope that produces an unmanageable report.

What this audit is NOT (service boundaries)

• Not a certification nor a guarantee of total security
• Not a generic document without technical evidence
• Not a how‑to guide: we describe risk and impact, not offensive recipes