For SaaS teams shipping AI, MCP, and agents

Security testing for SaaS products that ship AI, MCP, and agents

Appsecco tests core product behavior, connected infrastructure, and AI/MCP attack surfaces together, so the coverage matches the system you actually shipped.

Request scoped assessment See MCP server testing

Fixed quote, report reading call, and one revalidation window included.

10+

Years in product security

150+

Organizations secured

5,000+

Security vulnerabilities discovered

700+

Security engagements

Choose the right starting point

Start with the part of the system that actually carries the risk

Apps, cloud infrastructure, and MCP servers are scoped from different effort signals. Pick the path that matches where an attacker gets leverage first, then we confirm the fixed scope in a short technical sync.

Apps & APIs

$5,000-$20,000+ 3-14 business days

Start with product behavior and authorization paths

Use this route when the main risk lives in application logic, API trust boundaries, tenant isolation, or multi-role workflows inside the product.

Authorization depth and workflow complexity usually move the scope more than company size.

Start with apps & APIs testing See apps & APIs testing

Cloud, Kubernetes & IAM

From $7,500 5-10 business days

Start from the trust boundary and privilege model

Use this route when the main concern is cloud identity, Kubernetes separation, exposed services, storage risk, or chained escalation paths across infrastructure.

Cloud work is usually scoped from account boundaries and reachable control planes, not page counts.

Start with cloud scope See cloud, Kubernetes & IAM testing

MCP servers

$3,500-$15,000+ 3-10 days

Start where assistants reach tools, data, and auth

Use the MCP route when AI assistants connect to tools, internal APIs, file systems, or tenant data through Model Context Protocol.

MCP scope is driven by tools, transports, data boundaries, and OAuth or token handling rather than app pages.

Start with MCP scope See MCP server testing

If your system spans product, cloud, and MCP surfaces, start with the attack surface that would create the highest-impact path first. We combine adjacent scope during the technical sync instead of making you guess the final statement of work alone.

Trusted by product teams at

AI, MCP, and Agent Security

You passed the VAPT. The new attack surface may never have been tested.

Many SaaS teams did the reasonable thing: they bought the pentest, got the report, and checked the box.

Once AI, MCP, or agents are wired into the product, that old assurance model often stops proving what it looks like it proves.

You can pass checklist or compliance VAPT and still leave the most important AI/MCP attack paths untested.

Follow the gap

Step through where the checklist boundary ends and the connected product surface begins.

Stage 1

Who Can Access

Checklist -> Gap

Familiar check
Authentication, RBAC, and session handling were reviewed.
Why buyers trust it
That feels like access was tested end to end.
Where coverage stops
Checklist VAPT often stops at visible login, token, and role boundaries inside the app.
What remains exposed
It may never test how prompts, shared context, tool calls, or agent permissions create new paths into internal systems.

Stage 2

What Can Be Reached

Checklist -> Gap

Familiar check
Endpoints, inputs, and known integrations were in scope.
Why buyers trust it
That feels like the important data paths were covered.
Where coverage stops
Checklist VAPT rarely maps how retrieval, MCP resources, memory, internal APIs, and connected tools expand what the AI layer can touch.
What remains exposed
The model may still reach tenant data, internal services, or operational systems that were never exercised in the original test.

Stage 3

What Can Be Done

Checklist -> Gap

Familiar check
Critical actions and high-risk workflows were reviewed.
Why buyers trust it
That feels like dangerous behavior would have been caught.
Where coverage stops
Audit-driven testing often checks that actions exist, not whether AI or agent flows can trigger them out of sequence or across trust boundaries.
What remains exposed
An attacker may still be able to invoke tools, chain actions, poison context, or escalate privileges in ways the report never attempted to simulate.

See what Appsecco tests

Explore AI security testing Read our AI security guide

Testing scope

What Appsecco tests that ordinary VAPT usually misses

Appsecco tests the connected product system: core product behavior, the infrastructure it depends on, and the AI / MCP layer added on top.

Coverage view

Start with the product surfaces every SaaS team recognizes: application behavior, APIs, data boundaries, and authentication.

App

API

DB

Auth

Gateway

Object storage

IAM

MCP

Model API

Agent runtime

Authz / tenancy

Tenant isolation, role boundaries, and the cross-account access paths that let one customer reach another customer's data.

See details

API abuse

Method confusion, under-validated endpoints, hidden routes, and protocol edge cases that turn normal API behavior into attacker leverage.

See details

Workflow logic

Multi-step product flows, state changes, and feature misuse paths that scanners and checklist testing usually flatten into isolated checks.

See details

See full scope and deliverables

Before you commit

Inspect the report standard, research trail, and review package before the first call

The fastest way to judge a security testing practice is to review what it publishes, what the report looks like, and how clearly it explains the artifacts your team will carry into engineering, security, and buyer review.

Sample report

The report is designed for engineering review, not just procurement

Before any engagement, you can inspect the same evidence standard we use in client work: scoped findings, attack-path narrative, remediation guidance, and supporting artifacts that stand up in internal review.

Executive summary tied to decisions, not only severity labels
Attack-path narrative that shows how issues combine into real risk
Remediation guidance your engineers can act on without translation
Artifacts that make revalidation and customer review easier

Preview the sample report

Redacted sample. No form required.

Public research

The practice publishes real tooling, not only service copy

Appsecco's research footprint is visible before the first call. That matters because buyers should not have to infer technical depth from generic marketing language.

breaking-and-pwning-apps-and-servers-aws-azure-training

949+ stars

Hands-on cloud security training that shows how the team teaches and reasons about real attack paths.

vulnerable-mcp-servers-lab

157+ stars

An intentionally vulnerable MCP lab that shows how the team studies modern AI-connected attack surface in public.

pentesting-mcp-servers-checklist

23+ stars

A public checklist that turns MCP testing into a repeatable, reviewable assessment workflow.

Published by the Appsecco research team and maintained as public technical assets.

What your team gets

The deliverable system is built for triage, remediation, and proof

Buyers usually need more than a PDF. They need evidence that can move between engineering, security, and review stakeholders without losing context.

Executive summary

Risk themes, business impact, and the decisions leadership should make first.

Evidence-backed findings

Reproduction steps, impact notes, and supporting artifacts tied to the real attack path.

Fix guidance

Practical remediation direction with enough specificity for engineering follow-through.

Revalidation proof

A clear record of what was retested when customers, auditors, or launch reviewers ask for closure.

Additional references are available under NDA when the buying process calls for them.

From a B2B SaaS engagement

"We thought our automation had us covered. The manual testing didn't replace it — it showed us the categories of issues that automation isn't built for. Now we run both."

VP of Engineering , B2B SaaS Platform

Representative reference available under NDA.

Read the case study Talk through your scope

Pricing

Clear pricing for the systems you actually need tested

Start with core product coverage, add connected infrastructure when needed, or scope AI and MCP on their own.

Fixed quote before work begins

Standalone AI and MCP scopes available

Report reading call + one revalidation window included

Choose the coverage path

Core product

Web, API, auth, authorization, and business flows

For the main product surface, with a baseline cloud exposure review.

From $3,500

Connected infrastructure

Cloud exposure, IAM, Kubernetes, and container surfaces

For deeper connected-system coverage when infrastructure risk is part of the real attack surface.

Custom

AI / MCP layer

AI application security, MCP security, and agent-connected systems

For products that need AI or MCP tested on their own, or as part of a wider engagement.

Custom scope

Included in every engagement

These can be scoped together or independently.

Standard security report
Fix guidance
Report reading call
One revalidation window

When you are ready

A conversation to start.
No commitment required.

Tell us about your product and what you are building. We will explain what we would test, answer your questions, and provide a fixed quote if you would like one.

Request scoped assessment

or view a sample report first

No sales pressure

Fixed pricing, no surprises

You decide the pace

Core product surfaces

AI-enabled product surfaces

Product security specialists, not checkbox pentesters.

Company

Learn

Compliance

Industries

Security testing for SaaS products that ship AI, MCP, and agents

Start with the part of the system that actually carries the risk

Start with product behavior and authorization paths

Start from the trust boundary and privilege model

Start where assistants reach tools, data, and auth