FLAGSHIP PRODUCT · v1.4

Cignify/Web

An autonomous AI vulnerability scanner that thinks like an attacker. Point it at a URL. It crawls, chains, exploits and writes the report. No analysts. No false positives. No queue.

3h
median scan
98.4%
validated
2,400+
scans run
Overview

What is Cignify/Web?

Cignify/Web is an autonomous AI web application vulnerability scanner. Point it at a URL and it automates the reconnaissance, exploitation and reporting stages of a penetration test using AI reasoning instead of a fixed rule set. It crawls the target, chains vulnerable primitives with an attacker's reasoning, validates each finding by reproducing the exploit, and writes the report. No analyst in the loop. Every finding ships as a replay-confirmed exploit you can rerun, and is mapped to NCA ECC, SAMA CSF and PDPL controls.

cignify.sa/cignifyweb/scans/8af · acme-corp.com ● LIVE

acme-corp.com · Full scan

Started 14:02 · 312 endpoints · agent v2.4
5h 12m
Elapsed
Severity over time last 5h
Verification status46 findings
0% remediated
Fixed & verified 0
In progress 0
Still vulnerable 0
CRITIDOR · /api/v2/users/{id} · session reuseCWE-639View PoC →
HIGHSSRF · /login · avatar fetch reaches 169.254.169.254CWE-918View PoC →
HIGHAuth bypass · /reports/* · cross-tenant tokenCWE-287View PoC →
MEDReflected XSS · /search?q= · CSP bypass via JSONPCWE-79View PoC →
/ 01 RECONNAISSANCE

Maps your attack surface like an attacker does.

Authenticated crawls. GraphQL & OpenAPI ingestion. Inferred admin routes. JS-driven SPA traversal. The graph Cignify/Web builds is the one your adversaries are already building.

  • Authenticated session capture · OAuth, SAML, custom
  • Dynamic JS rendering · React, Vue, Angular SPAs
  • Hidden routes inferred from minified bundles
  • OpenAPI / GraphQL schema ingestion
sitemap · acme-corp.com 0 routes
/ 02 EXPLOITATION

Agentic exploitation. Not signature matching.

Our AI doesn't grep response bodies for keywords. It reasons about state, chains primitives, and validates every finding with a working proof-of-concept. If we can't pop it, we don't ship it.

  • Chain primitives into real exploit paths
  • Per-finding confidence score · 0–100
  • Reproducible PoCs · curl, Burp, raw HTTP
  • Validated against your stack version, not generic
exploit · IDOR /api/v2/users running
▸ RequestPOST
◂ Response···
step 1 / 3 · session token reuse confidence 0
/ 03 REPORTING

Reports your CFO and your CISO read the same way.

One scan produces three artifacts: an executive narrative for the board, a technical brief for engineering, and a compliance map for your auditors. Pre-mapped to NCA ECC, SAMA CSF, ISO 27001, and PDPL.

  • Executive summary · narrative, not bullet salad
  • Technical detail · code, PoC, remediation
  • Compliance mapping · NCA, SAMA, ISO, PDPL
  • Diff against last scan · what got fixed, what didn't
PDF
executive-summary.pdf28 pages · 2.4 MB · board-ready
3critical
11high
27medium
↓32%risk Δ
Risk over 6 scans↓ improving
By severity
Crit3
High11
Med27

Most severe: IDOR on /api/v2/users, full cross-tenant PII access. Two NCA ECC control gaps remain open and are flagged for the board.

MD
technical-brief.md41 findings · code + remediation
CRIT-01
finding id
CWE-639
weakness
9.1
CVSS v3.1
## CRIT-01 · IDOR endpoint /api/v2/users/{id} vector session token reuse # proof curl -H 'Cookie: sess=<t44>' \ https://acme-corp.com/api/v2/users/9412 # → 200 OK · leaked tenant-44 PII
cvss vectorAV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H
affected1 endpoint · 9,412 records
fixobject-level authz on user_id
effort~2h low risk
refsOWASP-A01 · ASVS 4.2.1
XLSX
compliance-map.xlsx4 frameworks · 12 tabs · evidence attached
NCA ECC
82% · 2 gaps
SAMA CSF
94% · mapped
ISO 27001
91% · mapped
PDPL
76% · 1 critical
FrameworkControlStatus
NCA ECC2-3-1 · Identitygap
NCA ECC2-5-2 · App securitygap
SAMA CSF3.3.5 · Access mgmtpass
ISO 27001A.9.4 · Access ctrlpass
PDPLArt.19 · Data secfail
Cignify/Web vs. traditional scanners

Agentic exploitation. Not signature matching.

Most vulnerability scanners flag a response that looks like a known pattern and hand you a list to triage. Cignify/Web reasons about application state, chains primitives like a live attacker, and only reports a finding once it has a working proof-of-concept behind it. That difference shows up everywhere below.

Cignify/Web Traditional scanners
Detection approach Agentic reasoning, chains primitives like an attacker Signature / pattern matching against known CVEs
Exploit validation Every finding shipped with a working proof-of-concept Flagged from a response signature, no exploit attempted
False positives Unvalidated findings dropped before they reach you High noise, manual triage required
PoC reproducibility curl / Burp / raw HTTP, replay-confirmed Often none beyond the matched signature
Compliance mapping (KSA) NCA ECC, SAMA CSF and PDPL mapped per finding Rarely extends past PCI DSS / GDPR
Report format Executive, technical and compliance artifacts, bilingual (AR/EN) Single technical export, usually English-only
Inside the scanner

The 7-step pipeline.

From a target URL to an audit-ready bilingual report, with no human between the launch and the result. Open-source for the commodity work, custom-built for everything that matters.

USE = best-in-class open source for commodity work · BUILD = where Cignify's moat lives

Compliance · built-in

Every finding mapped to the frameworks your regulators care about.

NCA ECC
Saudi Arabia
SAMA CSF
Saudi Banking
PDPL
Saudi Privacy
ISO 27001
Global ISMS
OWASP ASVS
Web Security
PCI DSS
Cards · v4
FAQ

Questions security leads actually ask.

What is an AI vulnerability scanner?

An AI vulnerability scanner automates the reconnaissance, exploitation and reporting stages of a penetration test using AI reasoning instead of a fixed rule set. Cignify/Web crawls a target, chains vulnerable primitives with attacker-style reasoning, validates each finding with a working proof-of-concept, and writes the report. No analyst in the loop.

How is Cignify/Web different from a traditional vulnerability scanner?

Traditional scanners match responses against known signatures and hand you a list to triage manually. Cignify/Web reasons about application state and chains primitives into real exploit paths, then only reports a finding once it has a reproducible proof-of-concept behind it. See the full comparison above.

How long does a scan take?

Scan time scales with the size of your target's attack surface: endpoint count, authentication depth, API surface. Check the live median scan time in the stats bar above for the current figure.

How are findings validated: do you get false positives?

Every finding Cignify/Web reports ships with a working, replay-confirmed proof-of-concept: a raw HTTP request you can rerun yourself. A candidate that can't be validated with an actual exploit is dropped before it reaches your report.

Does Cignify/Web map findings to Saudi compliance frameworks?

Yes. Findings are mapped to NCA ECC, SAMA CSF and PDPL controls, with a pass/fail status per control and a dedicated compliance report you can hand to auditors.

How does Cignify/Web fit into our existing workflow?

Findings and alerts can be pushed straight to Slack, so a critical finding shows up where your team already works instead of sitting in a separate dashboard nobody checks.

Stop waiting

Your first finding is hours away.

Need a services engagement instead? Talk to our services team →