Website security testing covers agreed functions, assessment of findings and remediation of confirmed vulnerabilities. Work is carried out with the owner’s permission, with testing boundaries and a safe change plan agreed in advance. After a fix, we check whether the specific problem has been resolved.Discuss website security testingExplore this service
WEBSITE SECURITY CHECK
Enter a website address to check HTTPS, security headers, HTML resource references and public domain records. Enter your email afterwards to view a short summary and receive the detailed PDF with recommendations.
Website owners needing security assessment, understandable findings and verification of completed fixes.
Provide the website address, platform, critical functions and known symptoms; testing actions are authorised separately.
Receive prioritised findings, remediation recommendations and specific retest results where verification is included.
Website security testing assesses agreed parts of a website, its configuration and features. It may include automated and manual checks, but does not prove the absence of every possible vulnerability. Verified findings are distinguished from tool alerts, and changes are made in a controlled way.
Website security testing starts with the owner’s permission and a clear scope. We identify domains, environments, account types and functions to be tested, together with permitted methods and timing. A URL submitted through the enquiry form helps us discuss scope; activity against the website requires separate authorisation.
Before testing, we identify critical functions such as checkout, payment, login or data submission. We establish a contact authorised to stop the work and a procedure for responding to unintended impact. A test environment and test accounts allow more scenarios to be examined while reducing the effect on real users.
The test plan follows the website’s functions and available user roles. The OWASP Web Security Testing Guide provides a methodological reference when selecting relevant checks. The site’s technology, data and usage scenarios determine its actual scope, and results are linked to the tested asset and supporting evidence.
We examine how users with different roles access functions and data. This includes both authentication and whether a signed-in user can perform only the actions appropriate to that role. Role descriptions and test accounts let us compare expected behaviour with what the site actually permits.
We build a picture of the components in use and their support status. A version number or automated notification helps select further checks, while findings are refined against the actual configuration and exposure. Recommendations identify the component to update and the functions to verify afterwards.
We review the access, file, server and website settings included in scope. The assessment considers whether administration functions and sensitive information are accessible only to intended users. Proposed restrictions include functional checks so that hardening does not disable a necessary website feature.
Input points are selected from forms, search, uploads and other website functions. Testing methods follow the permission and impact limits established beforehand. Results identify the particular function, observed behaviour and corrective direction, with sensitive exploitation details kept out of public-facing material.
The OWASP Web Security Testing Guide helps structure web security testing areas; specific tests are selected within the agreed scope and authorisation.
For a WordPress site, we assess the core, active and remaining plugins, the theme and administrative accounts together. We identify which components are still needed and which remain from earlier work. Dependencies are checked before removal because even an apparently unused visual component may hold content-related data.
Updates begin with a backup and a checklist of critical functions. Forms, ordering, language versions and integrations receive particular attention where present. Accounts, hosting and access arrangements also influence the site’s security; bringing a plugin up to date addresses only one part of that environment.
An automated alert is refined before a priority is assigned. We check whether it concerns an active component, the conditions under which the issue occurs and the data or actions it could affect. Where permission or access is insufficient to confirm it, the result is labelled as an unverified signal or testing limitation.
Each finding includes the asset, observed behaviour, necessary evidence, impact and recommendation. Priority helps determine the order of remediation, especially where exposure and business importance differ. Sensitive information is delivered to the owner or an authorised specialist separately from the management summary.
The remedy depends on the cause: a configuration change, component update, narrower access rights or a code correction may be needed. Before starting, we identify the required backup, change environment and rollback steps. The client receives the potentially affected functions and the approvals required.
Where a suitable test environment is available, the change is checked there first. After deployment, we verify both the corrected issue and related functions. The assessment report and recommendations can also be handed to the existing developer; implementation work and its responsibilities are defined separately from the assessment.
Each stage defines the work, your input and the result to check.
01
With the owner, we define domains, functions, accounts and permitted actions. Timing, critical systems and the contact authorised to stop testing are recorded.
02
We test the selected scenarios using the access and methods authorised. Collected signals are linked to specific assets and the conditions in which they occur.
03
We assess the validity of findings and their potential impact on the website. The client receives priorities, testing limitations and actionable remediation recommendations.
04
Selected fixes are prepared with backups, functional checks and rollback steps. The client or existing developer confirms deployment conditions and responsibilities.
05
We repeat the check for each relevant finding and record the outcome. Updated status, remaining issues and next actions are handed over.
Retesting is linked to specific findings and implemented changes. We repeat the necessary scenario, check the expected outcome and record whether the issue is resolved, partly remains or cannot yet be confirmed. If a fix alters a related function, that function is also checked within the defined scope.
The result identifies the test date, environment and limitations. The client can see exactly which finding was closed and why. The conclusion concerns the tested scenarios and their state at that time; subsequent component or feature changes can create a new testing need.
We provide the assessed scope, a prioritised finding register, remediation recommendations and the status of completed changes. Where retesting is performed, its result is attached to the corresponding finding so that progress is verifiable. Open questions have an identifiable next action and responsible contact.
To begin, prepare the website address, platform, known symptoms and critical-function list. Access requirements are established after scope is defined, with credentials transferred securely. If an incident has already occurred, provide its timing and observed symptoms without altering evidence simply to submit an enquiry.
A website editor needs to update text, and testing examines whether the role also permits administrative actions. Using a test account, we compare approved responsibilities with available functions. If permissions are too broad, the corrective direction is to narrow them to what is needed and verify that content editing still works.
The example illustrates assessment and retesting. In a real environment, required permissions follow the client’s workflow rather than the role’s name alone.
| Factor | Why it matters | Information we need |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment scope | Technology, features and methods determine testing work. | Website address, technology and assessment purpose. |
| Remediation needs | Fixing verified issues is assessed separately. | Known problems and remediation priorities. |
| Licences and providers | Changes may require extensions or another provider’s help. | Available licences, test environment and backups. |
Choose the service that matches the scope of your next task.
Assess the organisation’s security and provide an evidence-based report on gaps and priorities.
Monitor security events and escalate significant alerts through an agreed process.
LET’S TALK
Provide the website address, technology and known symptoms. We will discuss the assets and permitted methods; submitting an enquiry does not start active testing.
