Authorized Offensive Security

We’ll attack your systems before they do.

We test your environment the way a real attacker would — under a signed engagement, on a standards-based methodology. No vague PDF of findings. A written result that says exactly what held, what didn’t, and what was proven.

Signed authorization, always Scoped & logged Guardrail layer White-label ready

Why SiegePoint

A penetration test is only worth what it proves.

Most testing ends in a PDF full of findings and no agreement on what any of it meant. SiegePoint is built the opposite way: every engagement begins with a signed authorization and rules of engagement, runs on a repeatable technique taxonomy, and ends against a contractual acceptance model — our Surrender Levels — so you know precisely how deep we got, what held, and what has to change.

Authorized, not opportunistic

Nothing happens without a signed authorization-to-test letter and agreed rules of engagement. Scope, targets, windows, and escalation paths are defined before the first packet.

Methodology, not vibes

Engagements follow a documented, standards-aligned taxonomy of techniques with a built-in guardrail layer — reproducible, reviewable, and safe to run against production.

A defined finish line

The Surrender-Levels model turns "we poked around" into a written statement of what a successful test achieved, so results are unambiguous to engineers, executives, and auditors alike.

Services

Two ways to find out the truth about your defenses.

01 / OFFENSIVE

SiegePoint Engagements

Full-scope adversary simulation against the surfaces attackers actually use.

  • External & internal network penetration testing
  • Web, API, and cloud configuration testing
  • Social engineering — phishing and AI-assisted voice (vishing) simulation
  • Assumed-breach and lateral-movement exercises
  • Findings mapped to severity, CVSS, and a remediation path
02 / DEFENSIVE

SiegePoint Verify

Detection validation — not "are you vulnerable," but "would you even see it?"

  • Runs known adversary techniques against your live controls
  • Measures what your SOC, EDR, and SIEM actually detect and alert on
  • Surfaces the silent gaps between "deployed" and "working"
  • Delivered as a branded, repeatable validation report
  • Available to MSSPs and partners as a white-label engine

Verify user guide »  ·  Verify architecture guide »

Methodology

Standards-based. Guardrailed. Reproducible.

SiegePoint doesn't improvise. Engagements run on a documented architecture — a technique taxonomy, an execution model, and a safety layer that keeps authorized testing from ever becoming an actual incident. The full methodology and the acceptance model are published for clients and partners to review before a single test begins.

MITRE ATT&CKPTESOWASPNIST SP 800-115OSSTMMGuardrail / Safety Layer

The Acceptance Model

The Surrender Ladder — a shared definition of "the test worked."

Every attack surface maps onto the same five rungs, so acceptance is defined in one consistent language across the whole engagement. Each in-scope vector is dialed to a level in the Statement of Work — and that single number sets two things at once: the success bar (how far we must get to prove a control failed) and the stop line (how far we are authorized to go). This is the model in brief; the published document defines each rung and its evidence requirements in full.

S0
Reachable

The attack surface is exposed and in reach — the door is findable, nothing tried yet.

S1
Susceptible

Would-surrender proven, not taken. A weakness is demonstrably exploitable, or a person engages (clicks the lure, answers the pretext) — proof compromise would occur, with nothing actually taken.

S2
Surrendered

Disclosure & access obtained. The secret or access is actually in hand — credential captured, OTP disclosed, foothold established, data readable — held but not yet used.

S3
Actioned

A safely nefarious action inside an agreed, reversible blast radius — demonstrating the surrender had real consequence. Requires a named approver and explicit written authorization.

S4
Objective

The crown-jewel flag is captured — the pre-defined target asset reached, full chained business impact. The deepest authorized surrender, and the strongest consent requirement.

Pass / Acceptance Threshold

The rung at which the test authenticates as successful — below it the control held; at or beyond it, the control failed and a finding is raised. Objective, not editorial.

Authorization Ceiling

The maximum rung SiegePoint is permitted to reach — always at or above the pass threshold, and a mandatory stop line whatever else may be possible. The client dials their own risk.

How an Engagement Works

From signature to remediation, on the record.

Scope

Define targets, objectives, windows, and the target Surrender Level together.

Authorize

Signed authorization-to-test letter and rules of engagement — your get-out-of-jail paperwork.

Execute

Testing runs on the documented methodology, fully scoped and logged, guardrails on.

Report

Findings by severity and CVSS, evidence of the level reached, and a prioritized fix path.

Remediate

Retest verifies the fixes held — the loop closes, not just the ticket.

For MSSPs & Consultancies

Deliver it as your own.

SiegePoint is built white-label first. Firms that need a credible, standards-based offensive and detection-validation capability — without building the methodology, tooling, and reporting from scratch — can run SiegePoint under their own brand, with our engine and guardrails underneath.

Talk about partnering »

What partners get

  • Branded engagement reports and client-facing portal
  • The published methodology and acceptance model
  • Offensive engagements and Verify detection-validation, both
  • Authorization, RoE, and SOW templates to adapt
  • A guardrail layer that keeps authorized testing authorized
Authorized engagements only

Find out what an attacker would.

Every SiegePoint engagement starts with a conversation about scope and a signed authorization. Tell us what you want tested and how deep you want us to go.