OWASP ZAP security testing services
ZAP is an open-source security scanner that finds the common, exploitable problems before someone else does. It is not a substitute for a penetration test — it is what makes the pentest findings less embarrassing.
OWASP ZAP in practice
ZAP is an open-source security scanner that finds the automatable classes of vulnerability — injection, weak headers, exposed endpoints, misconfiguration. Because it is free and runs headless, it can run on every build rather than once a year, which changes when problems are found and how much they cost to fix.
It is not a penetration test and does not replace one. Business-logic flaws, broken access control between accounts and abuse of legitimate features all need a human. What ZAP does is ensure the pentest report is about interesting problems rather than about a missing security header anyone could have caught.
What we build with OWASP ZAP
Baseline and full scans in CI, so a new injection or misconfiguration is caught on the branch that introduced it.
Scans configured to log in and reach the pages behind authentication, where the real risk usually is.
A gate before production covering the OWASP Top 10 categories in an automatable form.
Is OWASP ZAP right for you?
Ask usA good fit when
- Automated scanning in CI on every build
- Pre-release checks against the OWASP Top 10 categories
- Authenticated scans reaching pages behind login
- Teams with no security budget for continuous testing
Probably not when
- As a substitute for a penetration test
- Finding business-logic or access-control flaws
- Scanning production directly — active scans write data
What we run alongside OWASP ZAP
The rest of the setup, and why each piece is there. We keep this list short on purpose — every dependency is something someone has to maintain.
- Baseline scan in CI
- Fast passive checks on every build, failing on new findings.
- Full scan on a schedule
- Active scanning against staging, weekly or nightly.
- Authentication configuration
- Scanning behind login, which is where the real surface is.
- Context and scope files
- Bounding what is scanned, so nothing outside the target is touched.
- Dependency scanning
- A separate concern, and just as important — ZAP tests the running application, not the libraries.
Why OWASP ZAP
Let’s talkCatches the common failures
Injection, weak headers, exposed endpoints and misconfiguration — the issues that show up in most real breaches.
Automatable
It runs headless in a pipeline, so security testing happens every build rather than once a year.
Open source
No licence cost and no per-scan billing, so scanning early and often is not a budget decision.
What we get called in to fix
Get a second opinionNever scanned at all
Applications going live with no automated security testing whatsoever. Starting here is cheap and finds real issues.
Scans producing only noise
Untuned output with hundreds of low-severity findings, so nobody reads any of it.
Unauthenticated scans only
Testing the login page while the authenticated application is where the risk lives.
Findings never triaged
Reports generated and filed, with no process for deciding what gets fixed.
OWASP ZAP or the alternative
The comparisons we are actually asked to make, answered the way we would answer them on a call.
Burp is the professional’s tool for manual testing. ZAP is free and automates well in CI — most teams benefit from both, used differently.
Scanning catches known classes continuously. Pentesting finds logic flaws periodically. Neither replaces the other.
Different targets: ZAP tests the running application, dependency scanners test what you build it from. Both belong in the pipeline.
Appium
CircleCI
Cypress
GitHub
GitLab
Jenkins
Jira
Katalon
Robot Framework
SeleniumGot an idea? Let’s make it real.
Tell us the short version
This could be the first step towards a new and successful collaboration. A one-line idea and a finished spec are both fine — tell us the problem, the deadline you’re working to and what’s in your way.
Keep looking
Frequently asked questions
No. It catches known, automatable classes of issue. Business-logic flaws still need a human.
Active scanning can write data, so we run it against staging with a defined scope, never blindly against production.
Yes — baseline scans on every build and fuller scans on a schedule is the usual arrangement.
Active scanning submits forms and can write data, so we run it against staging with a defined scope — never blindly against production.
It removes a class of known problems. Security also needs code review, dependency management, access control design and periodic human testing.