Location · Penetration Testing in Mountain View, California

Penetration testing in Mountain View for the platforms the world builds on.

CyberFortify delivers manual, exploit-driven penetration testing to Mountain View's platform companies, API-first SaaS and developer platforms - products consumed by millions of users and thousands of third-party developers. We test the security problem a big platform actually has: authorising every caller on your public APIs, containing untrusted third-party apps on your OAuth surface, and standing up to automated abuse at scale - all mapped to the OWASP API Security Top 10, SOC 2 and CCPA/CPRA.

Aligned with: OWASP API Security Top 10 · SOC 2 · CCPA/CPRA & CPPA · NIST CSF · PCI DSS 4.0 · OWASP · PTES · NIST 800-115
API
Authorisation at scale
OAuth
Provider & consent surface
100%
Manual testing
Free retest
Serving Mountain View: Platform & internet-scale companies · API-first SaaS · developer platforms & app ecosystems · OAuth & identity providers · consumer apps at scale · data & ad platforms · deep-tech & hardware · fintech infrastructure · professional services Serving Mountain View: Platform & internet-scale companies · API-first SaaS · developer platforms & app ecosystems · OAuth & identity providers · consumer apps at scale · data & ad platforms · deep-tech & hardware · fintech infrastructure · professional services
// Executive summary

A Mountain View platform does not defend one app - it authorises the whole internet. When your APIs and app ecosystem are open to millions of users and thousands of developers, the risk lives in provider-side authorisation, the OAuth and consent surface, and abuse at scale. CyberFortify runs manual API, cloud, web and source-code penetration tests here, aligned to the OWASP API Security Top 10, SOC 2, CCPA/CPRA and NIST CSF. Delivered remotely from our Gulf base on a daily overlap window. Fixed price, audit-ready reporting, free retest.

// 01 Why Mountain View platforms need penetration testing

An internal application answers a known set of users. A platform answers everyone. The moment you publish a public API and open an app ecosystem, your authorisation logic has to be right for millions of callers you have never met, and for thousands of third-party developers whose code you do not control. That is a different problem, and it fails differently.

The dominant failure mode here is not a missing patch - it is a caller reaching an object or function that belongs to someone else. Broken object-level authorisation (BOLA) lets a substituted identifier return another tenant's record; broken function-level authorisation (BFLA) lets an ordinary account invoke a privileged endpoint because the check trusted a client-set role. On a platform these are not one-off bugs - they are systematic, because the same decision is made billions of times a day and any gap is repeatable at scale.

Then there is the ecosystem you host. Every OAuth grant is a standing decision to let someone else's software touch your users' data, so over-scoped consent, weak redirect-URI validation or refresh tokens that outlive a removed app turn one malicious integration into a route across your user base. Add automated abuse - credential stuffing, scraping, resource-exhaustion against expensive endpoints - and the question is whether your rate-limiting holds when traffic is hostile. A scanner cannot answer any of this; confirming it takes a tester who reasons about who a token belongs to.

// 02 Compliance and regulatory drivers in Mountain View

Platform companies answer to the standards enterprise buyers enforce, to California's privacy regime over data held at scale, and to the security expectations that come with hosting other developers' apps. These are the anchors we most often map evidence against.

R.01 · Technical spine

OWASP API Security Top 10

The reference for provider-side API risk - BOLA, BFLA, broken authentication, unrestricted resource consumption and unsafe business flows. We test against every category and report in its language.

R.02 · Vendor assurance

SOC 2 & ISO 27001

Enterprise customers demand a SOC 2 report before they integrate your API into their stack. Independent penetration testing evidences the security criteria and ISO 27001 A.8.29.

R.03 · Consumer privacy

CCPA / CPRA & CPPA

California's privacy regime and the CPPA add consumer rights, cybersecurity-audit and risk-assessment duties over personal data held at platform scale. An unauthorised-access flaw in a public API sits squarely inside those duties.

R.04 · Ecosystem duty

Third-party-app review

Hosting an app ecosystem carries an obligation to review and contain the apps you admit. We test whether your app-registration, scope model and revocation actually bound what a third party can reach.

R.05 · Programme anchor

NIST CSF

Many platform security teams frame the wider programme to NIST CSF. Its Identify and Protect functions rest on independent testing to show that the controls you claim actually hold.

R.06 · Payments

PCI DSS v4.0 - Req 11.4

Billing APIs, payment endpoints and monetisation flows must penetration-test the cardholder environment and prove segmentation under Req 11.4.5.

// 03 Penetration testing services for Mountain View

Mountain View engagements lead with the API and its authorisation model, because that is the front door the whole internet knocks on. Cloud follows, since the platform and its identity live there; source review and web round out the picture.

A.05

API pen testing

Public and partner APIs - BOLA/BFLA at scale, scope enforcement, token handling, rate-limiting, resource-consumption and unsafe business flows.

A.04

Cloud pen testing

Identity, tenant isolation, service-account scope, secret and API-key management, and IMDSv2 across the cloud that hosts your platform.

A.01

Web application pen testing

Developer consoles, admin panels and consumer front ends, tested against the OWASP Top 10, SSRF and business-logic abuse.

A.06

Source code review

White-box review of the authorisation layer, OAuth server and webhook signing - where a per-request check is missing rather than merely misbehaving.

A.02

Network pen testing

External, internal and Active Directory testing, plus segmentation checks around the developer-platform admin and key-management surface.

A.07

Red teaming

Goal-based adversary simulation - abusing a third-party app or a leaked API key to reach user data and platform controls, testing whether it is detected.

// 04 How we deliver to Mountain View

We will not pretend otherwise: CyberFortify is a Gulf-based firm on UTC+3, and Mountain View sits ten to eleven hours behind us. We have no California office and no local staff. What we have is a working pattern built around that gap - our late afternoon and evening is your morning, and we hold that window open daily for stand-ups, live triage and read-outs with your platform and developer-experience teams. Testing continues while California is offline, so confirmed findings are waiting when your day starts.

What runs remotely

API, cloud, web, source-review and external testing from our secure environment - effectively all provider-side platform and ecosystem scope. Findings land in a shared channel as confirmed, and criticals such as a working BOLA are escalated the moment they are proven.

What we do on-site

Internal network, wireless and segmentation testing where a tester genuinely needs to be on the wire, plus in-person workshops for platform-security and trust-and-safety teams. We travel when it adds value and say so when it does not.

Every engagement opens with a free 30-minute scoping call and a fixed-price quote within the hour. For production APIs we agree test accounts, dedicated tenants and rate-limit allowances up front, and a free retest proves the fixes.

// 05 Industries we secure in Mountain View

Mountain View's risk profile is shaped by companies whose products are platforms - APIs and app ecosystems consumed at internet scale rather than sold seat by seat.

Platform & internet-scalePublic APIs · app ecosystems · consumer products at scale
API-first SaaSDeveloper consoles · usage metering · partner integrations
OAuth & identity providersConsent surface · scopes · token lifecycle · SSO
Data & ad platformsBulk export · audience APIs · scraping resistance
Fintech infrastructurePayment APIs · webhooks · key management
Deep-tech & hardwareDevice APIs · firmware back ends · developer SDKs

// 06 Our methodology

Mountain View engagements follow the same audit-defensible process we run everywhere, tuned to authorisation at scale. Testing is grounded in PTES and NIST SP 800-115, with the OWASP API Security Top 10 driving the API work, exploitation mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics, and OWASP guiding the web layer. As a CREST Accreditation Pathway firm we lead with manual testing - automation supports the tester, never replaces one.

01

Scoping & rules of engagement

API surfaces, OAuth flows, partner boundaries, test tenants, rate-limit allowances and escalation paths agreed in writing first.

Fixed quote in 1h
02

Reconnaissance & threat modelling

Attack surface mapped around the caller - who is authorised for what object and function, with which scope, on whose behalf.

ATT&CK aligned
03

Manual exploitation

BOLA, BFLA, scope escalation, token replay and abuse-at-scale weaknesses exploited under controlled conditions, cross-account access proven with seeded test records - never live user data.

Controlled exploit
04

Reporting & free retest

Executive summary, CVSS-scored detail and mapping to the OWASP API Top 10, SOC 2, CCPA/CPRA or NIST CSF - plus a free retest once fixes ship.

Audit-ready

// 07 Why CyberFortify for Mountain View

A scan-and-report vendor

Automated output rebadged as a penetration test, blind to authorisation logic - unable to tell whose object a token should reach, or whether an over-scoped third-party app can walk into your whole user base.

CyberFortify

A Gulf-based, CREST-pathway team candid about the time difference and structured around it. Manual exploitation aimed at provider-side API authorisation, the OAuth and consent surface, and abuse at scale - findings mapped to the frameworks your reviewers and auditors use, fixed pricing and a free retest.

Mountain View engagements most often pair an API assessment with a cloud penetration test, since a platform's risk splits between the authorisation logic in front of the API and the identity and key management underneath it. Where the app ecosystem is central, we add source-code review of the OAuth server and red teaming.

// 08 Frequently asked questions

Do you test public-API authorisation at the scale a real attacker would probe it?

Yes - it is the core of a Mountain View engagement. We test object- and function-level authorisation (BOLA and BFLA) across the API surface you expose to the public: whether a token issued to one user or tenant can read or mutate another's objects, whether identifiers can be enumerated or substituted, whether privileged functions check the caller rather than trusting a client-set flag, and whether those checks hold under high-volume, automated calling rather than only in the happy path. We prove cross-account access with seeded records, never live customer data.

How do you assess our OAuth provider surface and the third-party-app ecosystem we host?

We treat you as the authorisation server, not just a client. We test the consent and grant surface: whether scopes are enforced per request, whether over-broad or wildcard scopes let an app reach data the user never meant to share, whether redirect-URI validation, PKCE and state handling resist token theft, and whether refresh tokens for a removed or compromised app are actually revoked. We then test containment - whether one third-party app's access or a leaked app credential can be walked into other users' data or platform functions.

Which standards and regulations shape penetration testing for a Mountain View platform?

The OWASP API Security Top 10 is the technical spine - it names the authorisation, resource-consumption and business-flow failures that dominate provider-side API risk. SOC 2 is the assurance report enterprise customers demand before they integrate, and independent testing evidences the security criteria. CCPA/CPRA and the California Privacy Protection Agency add consumer rights, cybersecurity-audit and risk-assessment duties over data held at platform scale. Many teams anchor the wider programme to NIST CSF, and payment APIs bring PCI DSS 4.0 into scope.

With your team in the Gulf, how does the time gap work for a Mountain View engagement?

We will be plain: CyberFortify is a Gulf-based firm on UTC+3, ten to eleven hours ahead of Mountain View, with no California office and no local staff. We run a deliberate daily overlap window - our late afternoon and evening lands in your morning - reserved for stand-ups, live triage and read-outs with your platform and developer-experience teams. Testing continues while California sleeps, so confirmed findings are usually waiting when your day starts.

How fast can we get a quote for a Mountain View engagement?

Book a free 30-minute scoping call and we return a fixed-price quote, usually within the hour and always within one business day. The report is written to hand straight to an auditor or an enterprise security reviewer, and a remediation retest is included once your fixes ship.

Ready for a pen test in Mountain View?

Book a free 30-minute scoping call. Our team will recommend the right model and quote a fixed-price engagement - usually within the hour.

Schedule scoping call → Contact CyberFortify →