EresusSecurity
Backend Security

Strengthen backend trust boundaries at the design level.

Eresus helps teams find and close exploitable design issues across auth services, queue workers, background jobs, internal APIs, and microservice trust boundaries.

Book a security briefingAll services
Best fit

This engagement creates value fastest for teams like these.

Security and engineering leadership

Teams that need exploit-backed proof before they reprioritize application, API, cloud, or identity work.

Product teams with customer-facing risk

Organizations shipping auth-heavy, multi-tenant, regulated, or internet-exposed systems where logic and authorization flaws matter.

Buyers who need proof, not alert volume

Programs that want reproducible findings, remediation direction, and a closure path instead of scanner noise.

Scope

Auth and session architecture
Service-to-service trust boundary review
Queue, cron, and worker security
Internal API and backend workflow-abuse scenarios

Risk signals

Privilege-escalation chains
Missing auth between internal services
Data leakage through jobs/workers
Unsafe internal tooling and admin paths

Outcomes

Backend risk model
Engineering remediation guidance
New trust-boundary design notes
Retest and validation support
Engagement model

Not scanner output. Offensive work that produces proof.

01

Scope and objective

We align assets, workflows, user roles, testing windows, and safe operating boundaries before execution starts.

02

Expert validation

Eresus analysts validate exploitability and business impact instead of forwarding automated scanner output.

03

Proof, fix, retest

Each finding ships with evidence, impact, remediation guidance, and retest steps so teams can close risk quickly.

FAQ

The questions buyers want answered early.

How do you scope this engagement?+
We start from assets, business workflows, authorization boundaries, and the attack paths that could create material risk. Scope is shaped around exploitability, not checklist volume.
How are pricing and engagement models structured?+
Pricing is transparent and based on asset surface, API complexity, role hierarchies, and environment constraints. We offer fixed-scope project audits as well as recurring validation retainers for continuous deployment pipelines.
What is the typical test duration and delivery timeline?+
Standard web and API assessments take between 5 to 15 business days depending on scope. Critical zero-day vulnerabilities are communicated immediately via encrypted channels during active testing rather than waiting for report finalization.
What deliverables and report formats do we receive?+
You receive an executive summary for leadership, reproducible PoC exploit chains with raw HTTP requests, CVSS v3.1 scoring, developer-ready remediation code snippets, and a formal compliance attestation letter.
Is retesting included to verify our security fixes?+
Yes. Every engagement includes a complimentary retest window within 30 days of report delivery to validate that fixes have been properly implemented without introducing regression flaws.
Do your reports satisfy DORA, NIS2, SOC 2, and KVKK requirements?+
Yes. Our testing methodology follows OWASP Top 10, PTES, and NIST SP 800-115 standards, providing the technical evidence and methodology documentation required by auditors for DORA Article 25, NIS2 Article 21, SOC 2 Type II, and KVKK technical measures.

We tie risk to business impact.

Findings do not stop at severity labels. We explain which customer workflow, data class, or operational objective is affected.

Deliverables work for engineers and executives.

Engineering teams get reproducible proof and remediation direction; leadership gets the risk narrative, priority, and closure status.

Related proof

Research and advisories that support this service motion.

Research

The Silent Assassin of Modern APIs: BOLA / IDOR Vulnerabilities and Their Impact

Why does the undisputed leader of the OWASP API Top 10, Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA/IDOR), constantly evade WAF and DAST scanners? Defending...

Research

Structuring and Securing AI Microservices in Python (FastAPI)

Why must you transition from monolithic setups to a microservices architecture when exposing AI models to the public? Designing attack-resistant Python...

Research

Why Should We Use Rust for AI-Powered Backend Systems?

When AI assistants are writing half your code, how do you ensure system security? Discover the superiority of the Rust language and its Memory Safety...

Advisory

Zero-Day Analysis: Authenticated SSRF in n8n-mcp (GHSA-4ggg-h7ph-26qr)

Authenticated SSRF in n8n-mcp multi-tenant HTTP mode allows attackers with a valid token to force server-side requests to internal and cloud metadata resources.

Advisory

Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution via Arbitrary Command Injection in MCPHub Server Registration

MCPHub accepts attacker-controlled command and args values during server registration and spawns them through STDIO, enabling full remote code execution on the host.

Next step

Let’s scope this work against the surface that matters most.

Whether this starts as a pilot, a single application, a critical API, an AI agent flow, or a wider program, we start from the highest-impact surface.

Book a security briefingRequest a scope review