Focused SaaS Security Audit

SaaS API Authorization Audit

Test whether your SaaS API actually enforces access control across users, roles, tenants, and objects. We replay real requests, change the actor or tenant, and verify whether the response still holds up.

Request-level evidence Severity ratings Retest checklist From €750

Request audit

View broader security audit

Evidence Example

Proof that a valid request can become unsafe

A healthy response for the rightful owner does not prove the endpoint is safe. We test the object against another user or tenant and compare what comes back.

Valid tenant request

GET /api/invoices/8842

User A can access their own invoice and receives 200 OK.

Tenant mismatch

GET /api/invoices/8842

Unsafe result

The response returns 200 OK or different customer data instead of blocking access.

Risk: That is broken authorization. Authentication may be fine, but the object boundary is not.

WHAT THIS PROVES

The tenant boundary failed under request replay. You receive the request pair, response evidence, severity rating, fix direction, and retest checklist.

DELIVERABLES

What you receive from the audit

The output is written for engineering and buyers who need clarity, not generic findings language.

Evidence Package

Executive summary
Tenant boundary risk map
Affected endpoint list
Baseline and mutated request pairs
Cross-tenant evidence
Response diffs and side effects

Engineering Handoff

Severity ratings
Remediation guidance
Retest checklist
Audit log gaps if relevant
Optional architecture notes
Recommended next steps

Pricing

Pricing for focused and broader authorization audits

Start with a narrow workflow review or move into the broader audit when roles, tenants, exports, or support access make the boundary more complex.

Focused API Authorization Audit

For one risky workflow or API area

A targeted review for one endpoint group, object path, or workflow where authorization has to be proven under mismatch.

Best when one workflow is the highest-risk gap and you need a quick evidence review.

PROJECT INVESTMENT

From €750

Includes baseline and mutated request pairs, evidence, and fix direction for the chosen surface.

What's included

One risky workflow or API area
Baseline and mutated request testing
Response evidence and fix direction

Short audit summary
Reproduction steps for engineering

Request audit

SaaS Authorization Audit Most relevant

For products with roles, tenants, teams, shared objects, exports, or support access

The most relevant option for products where multiple permissions, tenants, and object types share the same API surface.

Use this when the product has enough access-control complexity that a single workflow review is not enough.

PROJECT INVESTMENT

From €1,500

Most relevant for SaaS teams that need a broader authorization review with practical risk classification.

What's included

Roles, tenants, and shared objects
Export and download endpoint checks
Support and admin boundary review

Broader evidence set
Retest checklist included

Request audit

Full SaaS Security Audit

For broader authorization and runtime API risk

A broader audit path when authorization is only one part of the risk picture and the API needs wider runtime validation.

Best when tenant isolation, RBAC, audit logs, API keys, and general API risk all need to be reviewed together.

PROJECT INVESTMENT

From €3,000+

Use this when the issue spans more than authorization and the system needs a wider security pass.

What's included

Authorization and tenant isolation
RBAC and audit log review
API key and runtime risk checks

Broader scope planning
Optional implementation support

View audit

TRIGGERS

Signs the audit is worth doing now

This is most useful when the product already has customers, shared resources, and enough permission complexity for the backend to drift away from the UI.

COMMON TRIGGERS

A quick checklist for boundary risk

Multiple companies, workspaces, or organizations share the same product
Shared schema, shared infrastructure, or tenant context passes through code
Exports, reports, files, or analytics are tenant-scoped
Background jobs process customer data
Support or admin users can access customer accounts
Customers ask how tenant isolation is proven

BUYER PROOF

Request It Before Buyers Ask

Use this audit before a security review, enterprise sale, customer questionnaire, or tenant-sensitive release.

You get request-level evidence, risk ranking, fix guidance, and a retest checklist your team can use directly.

Request Audit Scope View Sample Report

PROBLEM

Authorization bugs hide inside normal request flow

The endpoint can look healthy, the token can be valid, and the request can still return data that belongs to the wrong user or tenant.

COMMON LEAK PATHS

Object IDs are accepted without checking ownership or tenant scope.
Role changes do not actually change what the API returns.
Tenant filters disappear in joins, includes, exports, or read models.
Shared endpoints expose a resource that should only be visible to the original owner.

WHY NORMAL CHECKS MISS IT

Normal Checks Do Not Replay Context

QA, logs, and infrastructure scans often confirm that a request succeeded. They do not prove the returned object, export, cache entry, or background job result belonged to the right tenant.

QA usually verifies happy-path requests and does not mutate actor or tenant context.
Logs show a successful request, not whether the returned object belonged to the caller.
Infra scanning cannot see authorization decisions made in controller, service, or query code.
Static analysis can flag patterns, but it cannot prove the live response is safe under mismatch.

AUDIT RESPONSE

The audit replays tenant-sensitive requests across changed actor, tenant, role, object, and workflow context.

WHAT WE TEST

What the authorization audit checks

We focus on the exact places where SaaS APIs leak data: object ownership, role scope, tenant boundaries, and the response body itself.

Tenant Boundary Coverage

API and object access

Tenant-scoped API reads
Tenant-scoped list and search
Nested resources
Shared schema tenant filters
Joins and includes
Cross-tenant object ID reuse
Bulk update and delete

Roles and admin workflows

RBAC and role drift
Admin and support access
Tenant switching logic

Exports and data output

Export and download scope
Shared report or analytics endpoint leaks metadata
Response overexposure

Jobs, queues, and caches

Cache key isolation
Background job tenant context
Queue and scheduled job boundaries

Evidence and traceability

Audit log tenant context
Data residency assumptions
Response and side-effect evidence

AUDIT FOCUS

High-Risk Paths First

The audit follows requests, objects, roles, exports, jobs, caches, and admin workflows to find where tenant context breaks.

Changed tenant context
Changed actor or role
Changed object ownership
Changed workflow path
Response and side effects checked

Request Audit Scope

HOW WE PROVE IT

How the audit works in practice

The goal is to prove the failure path with a repeatable request pair and enough detail for engineering to fix it without guesswork.

PROCESS

How the audit proves access control issues

We compare valid requests against changed tenant, actor, role, token, and object context. The result is clear evidence of where access control holds, where it fails, and which paths should be fixed first.

TIMELINE

How we test tenant boundaries

Collect representative API flows

We start with the endpoints and workflows that actually move customer data, not a random sample of routes.

Map actors and object types

We identify which roles, tenants, and object relationships matter so the test matrix matches the product.

Create baseline requests

We capture the known-good request and response for the rightful owner before we mutate anything.

Replay mutated requests

We change actor, tenant, role, or object IDs and observe whether access control still holds.

Compare responses

We compare status codes, payloads, field presence, and returned customer data instead of trusting the code path.

Classify by exposure risk

We separate harmless behavior from real leakage so the team can fix the highest-risk paths first.

Common Failures

Common authorization failures we look for

These are the failure modes that show up again and again in SaaS APIs when the backend trusts the wrong context or only checks part of the request.

Authenticated user reads another object

The caller is signed in, but the object belongs to someone else and still comes back.

Tenant filter missing in the query

The endpoint reads from the right table but does not scope the result to the active tenant.

UI-only role restriction

The frontend hides the action, but the backend still accepts the request when replayed directly.

Mixed tenant data in lists

Search, list, and pagination responses combine records from different customers.

Export ignores tenant scope

CSV, PDF, or report downloads return records outside the caller's allowed boundary.

Support bypasses customer boundary

A support or admin flow is broader than intended and can be reused outside the intended context.

Nested resource checks stop too early

The parent object is checked, but the child object is not revalidated before it is returned.

Policy checks route, not ownership

The route is allowed by policy, but the specific object ownership is never verified.

Comparison

Why this is not another multi-tenant security guide

Guides explain how tenant isolation should work. This audit tests whether your SaaS actually enforces it across real requests, roles, exports, jobs, caches, and admin workflows.

Guides / generic scanners

Explain common risks.

Give general advice.

May miss tenant-specific business logic.

Do not prove your live tenant boundary.

Do not provide reproducible request pairs.

Agnite tenant boundary audit

Tests your SaaS flows directly.

Replays requests across tenant, actor, role, and object context.

Compares real responses and side effects.

Provides evidence, severity, reproduction steps, and fix guidance.

Includes a retest checklist your team can rerun after fixes.

What this is not

Not generic vulnerability scanning. Not only source code review. Not only authentication review. Not infrastructure scanning. Not a broad compliance checklist.

Who Should Care

Who should care about this audit

It matters most when the product already carries customer data, internal workflows, or permission tiers that can expose more than one account boundary.

SaaS founders

You need proof that customer data is not exposed as the product grows and more buyers ask harder questions.

CTOs

You need to know whether the backend actually enforces the rules that the platform design assumes.

Engineering leads

You need a clear audit target, a fix path, and a way to retest the same flow after the change.

Enterprise-ready teams

Security review, procurement, and due diligence often focus on whether object and tenant boundaries are real.

Teams handling records

Invoices, documents, reports, analytics, and internal workflows all need object-level authorization to stay tight.

Products with roles and tenants

If users, admins, support, and multiple workspaces share the same API, the authorization model needs proof.

Related proof/resources

Open audit path

Proof hub

Open the supporting proof pages

Review the sample report, sample findings, release checklist, and security lab that sit behind this audit path.

OPEN REPORT

Sample Audit Report

Open a polished example report showing the audit scope, tested authorization paths, risk summary, and recommended fixes.

Open report

VIEW FINDINGS

Sample Findings

Review 10 realistic SaaS security findings, including tenant isolation failures, broken role checks, exposed object access, and unsafe data responses.

View findings

OPEN CHECKLIST

Audit Checklist

Use the same checklist to review object access, tenant boundaries, RBAC rules, exports, webhooks, and sensitive response data before release.

Open checklist

OPEN LAB

Security Lab

See the lab scenarios behind the report, including how cross tenant access, IDOR, RBAC gaps, and audit logging issues are tested.

Open lab

FAQ

Questions buyers ask before they book the audit

Short answers for teams deciding whether they need targeted authorization testing or the broader security audit.

Is this the same as pentesting?

No. Pentesting is broader and usually not focused on proving access control at the API object boundary. This page is about request-level authorization testing.

What is the difference between authentication and authorization here?

Authentication proves who the caller is. Authorization proves what that caller can access. This audit checks the second part by changing actor, tenant, role, and object context.

Do you need source code?

Not always. We can start from live requests and responses. Source access helps when the failure points to query logic, service boundaries, or tenant propagation.

Can a 200 OK still be a finding?

Yes. If a different user or tenant receives the wrong object, the status code does not matter. The response still proves broken authorization.

What if the issue is broader than one endpoint?

Then the audit output will show the shared pattern and point to the same class of fix across the affected API surfaces.

What do we receive after the audit?

You receive findings, reproduction steps, evidence, risk explanations, and remediation guidance. If the issue is structural, the report will also point to the broader system changes that should follow.

Can you help validate fixes after remediation?

Yes. The same baseline and mutated requests can be replayed after remediation to confirm the authorization boundary now holds.

Final CTA

Test the boundary before customers find the gap.

If your SaaS API handles shared objects, role changes, or tenant-specific data, this is the place to prove the boundary in live traffic.

Request audit View broader security audit