Security testing for delivery teams who need application risks found during the project, not after go-live. PinnacleQM builds risk-based security checks into testing, aligned to recognised standards.
30+years of international
IT experience
Many projects treat security as a final check by a separate team. By then, design flaws are expensive to fix, access rules have been built incorrectly and deadlines push risks into production. Security becomes a gamble.
PinnacleQM plans security testing alongside functional testing, scaled to risk. Our specialists test authentication, authorisation, input handling and data protection, and automate access rights validation for every change. Findings are tracked like any other defect.
Security is a quality characteristic like any other. We plan it with the rest of testing so risks are found early and fixed within normal delivery.
Proven on complex enterprise programmes.
Security effort matches the sensitivity of data and the exposure of each system. Low-risk systems are not over-tested.
Checks align with OWASP ASVS, so coverage is structured and defensible. Auditors and security teams recognise the approach.
User access rights are automatically validated after every relevant change. Privilege creep is caught before it reaches production.
Security issues surface during delivery, when they are cheaper to fix. Fixes happen within normal sprint work.
Test data is obfuscated, so security testing never exposes personal information. Environments are protected as well as systems.
Findings are rated by risk with practical remediation guidance for developers. Developers know exactly what to change.
Application security checks planned, executed and tracked alongside the rest of testing.
We assess security risks with your architects and security team, and plan testing proportionate to data sensitivity, exposure and regulatory obligations. Security criteria become part of the definition of done for each change.
We test authentication, session management, authorisation, input validation and error handling against OWASP ASVS-aligned requirements. Each finding is rated by risk, linked to the requirement it breaches and recorded as evidence.
Automation validates user roles and permissions after changes, confirming that each role can do what it should and nothing more. Results give auditors clear evidence that access rules still work.
We test APIs and integrations for authentication, authorisation and data exposure risks, which interface-only testing often misses, closing weak points in the trust between connected systems before release and go-live.
We verify data protection controls, confirm that test environments use obfuscated data and review who can access those environments, so personal information stays protected throughout delivery and testing and afterwards.
Security testing follows the same risk-based lifecycle as functional testing, planned from the start and tracked like other defects, so it never becomes a late surprise.
Identify security risks, data sensitivity and obligations for the change. The results guide how much testing each change needs.
Define security test scope, criteria and timing within the delivery plan. Timing is planned with development, not after it.
Execute application, API and access control tests alongside functional testing. Evidence is recorded for every test run.
Rate findings by risk, guide fixes and retest until resolved. Developers receive specific remediation guidance.
Confirm security criteria are met before release and record the evidence. Security sign-off is part of the release decision.
HealthTest obfuscated production records, created full test condition variations and tested more than 5 million transactions per day, without exposing any patient information along the way.
Read more
A state health integration re-platforming was delivered by 7 testers in 12 months against competitor estimates of 40 to 46 testers over 36 months.
Read more
A state transport department paying around $1 million a year in penalties had every defect tested, fixed and retested, and no longer incurs penalties.
Read more
7 min read
How to give teams realistic test data while meeting privacy obligations, including obfuscation, synthetic data and residency.
7 min read
The evidence, residual risks and conditions a credible go-live recommendation must include for decision-makers to rely on it.
7 min read
What independence adds to testing on multi-vendor programmes, what it does not, and the signs a programme needs it.
Tell us about the system, the data it handles and your release plan. We will outline security testing proportionate to your risks and obligations, and how it fits your delivery.
Mention the system, data sensitivity and any security standards you follow.
