Web Application Security
Module A — Web Application Security Certification
ISO/IEC 17065-accredited third-party certification of web applications — single-page applications, server-rendered apps, customer portals, internal business tools — against the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) and the OWASP Top 10. Three assurance levels match evaluation depth to your product’s risk.
What Module A Is For
Built for the Web Application Security Question
Module A of Guardian SecureApp™ is the right module when your product surface is a web application — a browser-accessible product where the application’s own security posture is the primary assurance question your customers, regulators or procurement teams are asking. The certification is granted under ISO/IEC 17065:2012, the international standard for product certification, and is issued by Guardian Assessment Pvt. Ltd. — a Conformity Assessment Body accredited by United Accreditation Foundation (UAF) under accreditation number 52605385601 (IAF Scope Code 33, valid until 05 May 2030).
The certification answers a specific question: has this named web application, at this named version, in this named scope, been independently evaluated against the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard at the named assurance level — and does it meet the certification criteria? When the answer is yes, the result is a publicly-listed certificate that customers, partners and regulators can verify by certificate number, without having to call you. When the answer is no, no certificate is issued, no fee is refunded, and the engagement closes with a written rationale. Module A is structurally distinct from Modules B and C. Module A focuses on the application as a single integrated product. Module B (SaaS / multi-tenant platforms) extends Module A and adds tenant-aware evaluation. Module C (API / microservices) is anchored in the OWASP API Security Top 10 rather than the broader ASVS. A product can be certified under any combination of modules — a SaaS platform with public APIs, for example, is naturally Modules A, B and C together — but each module addresses a different assurance question and contributes a different set of certification criteria.
What Gets Certified
The Web Application Surfaces We Certify
Module A is application-architecture-agnostic. We certify the product’s security posture, not the framework, language or hosting model. Within the broad scope of ‘web applications’, the typical product surfaces certified under Module A include the following, and Module A is suitable for any of them:
- Single-Page Applications (SPAs) — front-ends built in React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, Solid or any other client-side framework, communicating with backends over HTTPS.
- Server-Rendered Web Applications — full-stack frameworks such as Next.js, Nuxt, Remix, Rails, Django, Laravel, Spring Boot, ASP.NET Core, Phoenix and similar.
- Customer-Facing Portals and Self-Service Applications — login-gated dashboards, account management, billing portals, support portals, KYC / onboarding flows.
- Transactional Websites — e-commerce, marketplaces, booking platforms, ticketing, B2B order-management, where transactional integrity is part of the security posture.
- Internal Business Tools — admin dashboards, internal CRM / ERP, employee self-service portals, internal analytics applications. Internal-only products are routinely certified under Module A at Level 1 or 2.
- Content Portals and Publishing Platforms — CMS-powered websites, knowledge bases, customer help centres, marketing sites with form submissions or authenticated areas.
- Hybrid Web / Mobile Front-Ends — where a web front-end and a mobile app share a backend, the web front-end falls under Module A; the shared backend may also fall under Module C if it is an API.
The technology stack is not a certification gate. We have no preferred language, framework, hosting model or deployment architecture. What we do require is a clear scoping conversation that identifies precisely which application, version, components and integrations are within the boundary of evaluation. Anything outside that boundary is explicitly excluded from the certificate.
The Technical Backbone
Built on the International Standard for Application Security Verification
The technical backbone of Module A is the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) — an open, internationally maintained standard that catalogues security controls a web application must demonstrate to be considered trustworthy. The ASVS is published by the OWASP Foundation and is updated through a community-maintained process with public review. It is the single most widely adopted application-security verification framework in the industry, and is referenced (formally or by analogy) by virtually every regulated procurement requirement that asks for evidence of application security.
The ASVS organises its requirements into fourteen control families, each addressing a distinct dimension of application security. It also defines three verification levels — ASVS Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 — which Guardian’s three assurance levels (Level 1 Basic / Level 2 Advanced / Level 3 High-Risk Critical) map directly to. Choosing a Guardian SecureApp™ Level under Module A is, in practice, choosing the corresponding ASVS verification level — with the procedural framing of ISO/IEC 17065 added on top.
Every Module A evaluation produces a documented mapping from the certified product back to the ASVS controls evaluated, the testing methodology applied to each control family, and the conclusion reached. This mapping is summarised in the certificate’s Scope Statement and detailed in the (confidential) Evaluation Report issued to the applicant.
The 14 ASVS
The Fourteen Dimensions We Evaluate
Below is a summary of the fourteen ASVS control families evaluated under Module A, organised in the canonical V1–V14 order. The depth of evaluation in each family scales with the assurance level. This list is illustrative; the authoritative reference is OWASP ASVS, which is updated periodically and to which Module A tracks.
| Family | Topic | What We Evaluate |
|---|---|---|
V1 | Architecture, Design and Threat Modelling | Documented architecture, identified trust boundaries, threat model coverage of authentication, authorisation, data flow and trust assumptions. |
V2 | Authentication | Identity verification, password policy, multi-factor authentication, credential storage, account-recovery flows, brute-force resistance, federated authentication. |
V3 | Session Management | Session token generation, cookie attributes, session lifetime, idle and absolute timeout, concurrent session policy, session revocation on logout and credential change. |
V4 | Access Control | Authorisation enforcement at every gate; protection against insecure direct object reference (IDOR), privilege escalation, missing function-level access control. RBAC / ABAC implementation correctness. |
V5 | Validation, Sanitisation and Encoding | Input validation strategy, output encoding, SQL / NoSQL / OS / LDAP injection resistance, cross-site scripting (XSS) defences, content-type enforcement, file upload validation. |
V6 | Stored Cryptography | Use of approved algorithms, secure key management, key rotation, randomness sources, cryptographic agility, deprecated-algorithm avoidance. |
V7 | Error Handling and Logging | Safe error responses, no information disclosure, structured logging, audit log integrity, sensitive-data exclusion from logs. |
V8 | Data Protection | Classification of sensitive data, encryption at rest, data minimisation, retention and deletion practices, secure caching headers, browser data-storage hygiene. |
V9 | Communications | TLS configuration, HSTS, certificate pinning where appropriate, weak-cipher avoidance, secure WebSocket and HTTP/2 / HTTP/3 configuration. |
V10 | Malicious Code | Third-party dependency hygiene, SBOM presence, supply chain controls, anti-tampering and integrity checks where applicable. |
V11 | Business Logic | Logic-flow integrity, anti-automation, sequencing controls, abuse-case resistance, transactional integrity, race-condition handling. |
V12 | Files and Resources | File upload validation, MIME and content sniffing, path traversal resistance, signed URL handling for object storage, executable-content prevention. |
V13 | API and Web Service Interfaces | Where the web application calls or exposes APIs, evaluation of authentication, authorisation, rate limiting, schema validation, error handling. For API-only products, see Module C. |
V14 | Configuration | Hardening of build, deployment and runtime configuration; secrets management; secure defaults; environment separation; container and orchestration security where applicable. |
Detailed treatment of OWASP ASVS — including how its controls are tested and what evidence demonstrates conformance — is at /standards/owasp-asvs.
Levels
Match Evaluation Depth to Your Product’s Risk
The same fourteen ASVS control families are addressed at every Guardian SecureApp™ level — but the depth at which each family is evaluated varies materially by level. Level selection is the most important scoping decision under Module A and should be driven by your product’s risk profile, regulatory drivers and customer expectations. Where in doubt, scoping conversation maps your product to a proportionate level.
| Aspect | Level 1 Basic | Level 2 Advanced | Level 3 High-Risk / Critical |
|---|---|---|---|
ASVS Verification Level | ASVS Level 1. | ASVS Level 2. | ASVS Level 3. |
Automated Scanning | Yes, DAST and SAST where source is available. | Yes, DAST, SAST, SCA, and secrets scanning. | Yes, DAST, SAST, SCA, secrets, and configuration scanning. |
Manual VAPT | Targeted, scenario-based. | Comprehensive coverage of OWASP Top 10 and ASVS Level 2. | Adversarial / threat-led, with full ASVS Level 3 coverage. |
Source Code Review | Not mandatory. | Sample-based on critical components, including authentication, authorisation, and payment. | Comprehensive across the in-scope codebase. |
Architecture Review | High-level review. | Detailed review including data flow and trust boundaries. | Full threat-modelled architecture review, including STRIDE / PASTA where applicable. |
Business-Logic / Abuse-Case Testing | Limited scope. | Standard scope. | Extensive, with an adversarial mindset. |
Authenticated Testing | Single role, typically an authenticated user. | Multiple roles, including user, admin, and anonymous where applicable. | All defined roles plus privilege escalation paths. |
Configuration / Hardening Review | Spot-check. | Documented review against benchmarks. | Comprehensive review against CIS / vendor benchmarks. |
Surveillance Frequency | Annual. | Annual plus change-driven review. | Semi-annual plus change-driven review. |
Indicative Starting Fee* | USD 2,000 onwards | USD 4,000 onwards | USD 7,000 onwards |
Typical Timeline | 4-7 weeks. | 6-10 weeks. | 10-16 weeks. |
*Indicative starting fees apply to small organisations certifying a single, low-complexity web application on a single technology stack in a single environment. Fees do not influence the certification decision (ISO/IEC 17065 Clause 4.2 — impartiality requirement).
Detailed Level pages: /levels/level-1-basic, /levels/level-2-advanced, /levels/level-3-critical.
OWASP Top 10
How OWASP Top 10 Fits Alongside ASVS
OWASP ASVS is the comprehensive control catalogue. The OWASP Top 10 is the prioritised risk framework — a periodically-refreshed list of the most critical web application security risks observed in the wild, drawn from telemetry across many organisations and validated by the OWASP community. The two documents are complementary, not alternative: ASVS tells you what to verify; OWASP Top 10 tells you what to verify first.
In Module A evaluation, the OWASP Top 10 functions as a risk-prioritisation lens applied across the ASVS evaluation. Where a product fails an ASVS control, the severity of the resulting finding is partly determined by which OWASP Top 10 category it maps to. A finding that maps to A01 (Broken Access Control) or A02 (Cryptographic Failures) — the categories at the top of the OWASP Top 10 — is treated more seriously than a finding in a lower-prioritised category. Critical and High findings, regardless of category, must be addressed for certification to be granted.
Detailed treatment of the current OWASP Top 10 — including the categories, mappings to ASVS, and how Guardian assesses severity — is at /standards/owasp-top-10.
Evaluation
How We Evaluate
Module B evaluation is documented in GSA-PR-01 and applied uniformly across applicants at the same level. The methodology blends documentation review (Stage 1) with technical evaluation (Stage 2). Below is the structure of evaluation activities under Module B; everything in Module A’s methodology applies, plus tenant-aware additions.
Module A evaluation methodology is documented in the Guardian SecureApp™ scheme document GSA-PR-01 and applied uniformly across applicants at the same level. The methodology blends documentation review, Stage 1, with technical evaluation, Stage 2, and at higher levels, source code review and architecture review.
Documentation Review
Stage 1 reviews architecture diagrams, threat models, data flow diagrams, authentication / authorisation design documents, change history, and prior security assessment evidence. Documentation findings are reported to the applicant before Stage 2 begins. Stage 1 outputs include a Documentation Review Report and a refined Stage 2 evaluation plan, scoped to the application as it actually is rather than as initially described.
Technical Evaluation
Stage 2 is the principal technical evaluation activity. Specific activities, applied at depths that scale with the assurance level, include:
- Vulnerability assessment using authenticated and unauthenticated automated scanning with targeted manual verification.
- Penetration testing across OWASP Top 10 at Level 1, comprehensive ASVS Level 2 at Level 2, and full ASVS Level 3 with adversarial / threat-led testing at Level 3.
- Static Application Security Testing at Level 2 for sample-based critical components and at Level 3 across the in-scope codebase.
- Software Composition Analysis covering third-party dependency review, vulnerable-version detection, and license posture on an informational basis.
- Configuration and hardening review covering runtime, build, deployment configuration, secrets handling, and environment separation.
- Authentication and session management review including MFA, federated authentication, session token handling, and recovery flows.
- Authorisation and access control review including IDOR, privilege escalation paths, missing function-level access control, and anti-CSRF for state-changing endpoints.
- Business-logic and abuse-case testing covering sequencing, transactional integrity, race conditions, and anti-automation.
- Cryptographic review covering algorithm selection, key management, randomness, and deprecation handling.
- Data-protection review covering classification, encryption at rest and in transit, retention, data-minimisation, and third-party data sharing.
Source Code Review
Source code review is sample-based at Level 2, focused on authentication, authorisation, payment, and other security-critical components. It is comprehensive at Level 3, covering the in-scope codebase. Code review is conducted via secure remote access in the applicant’s environment wherever feasible; source code is not retained by Guardian after the engagement.
Architecture Review
Architecture review covers the data flow of the application, the trust boundaries between components, and the threat model that justifies the controls in place. At Level 3, architecture review is conducted as a formal threat-modelling exercise, such as STRIDE or PASTA, producing a documented threat model alongside the evaluation report.
Scope
The Boundary of a Module A Certificate
A certificate’s scope is the precise boundary of what the certificate attests to. Anything inside the boundary has been evaluated; anything outside has not. The Scope Statement issued with each Module A certificate names the boundary explicitly and unambiguously, so that any reader of the certificate — your customer, your regulator, your auditor — can determine without ambiguity what the certificate covers.
| In Scope Typically | Out of Scope Unless Explicitly Added |
|---|---|
The application code, including front-end and any application-tier backend code that constitutes the certified product. | Underlying cloud platform controls such as AWS, Azure, or GCP. The provider’s controls are governed by the provider’s own attestations, not Module A. |
Authentication and session management implementation within the application. | Third-party identity providers such as Okta, Auth0, or Cognito, beyond your configuration of them. The IdP itself is governed by its own certification. |
Authorisation enforcement, RBAC / ABAC implementation, and access control logic. | Network infrastructure outside the application boundary, including firewalls, WAF policies, and DDoS protection, unless within the certificate’s explicitly defined boundary. |
Configuration of the application as deployed in the evaluation environment, including hardening, secrets handling, and environment separation. | Other applications operated by the same applicant. Each application is certified separately. |
APIs the web application directly calls or exposes, V13. Where the API surface is itself the product, Module C applies separately. | Mobile applications, desktop applications, embedded firmware, browser extensions, and IoT. These are outside Module A scope entirely. |
Build pipeline integrity and SBOM hygiene where these directly affect the certified application. | Operational controls of the applicant organisation, including HR, vetting, and physical security. These are management-system concerns addressed by ISO/IEC 27001, not Module A. |
Deliverables
What You Receive at the End of a Module A Engagement
On successful completion of a Module A engagement, the following outputs are issued. Each has a defined audience and a defined retention treatment:
Certificate of Conformity (Public)
A signed, dated, numbered certificate confirming Module A certification of the named product at the named version, against the named assurance level. The certificate is publicly listed in the directory at /directory and can be displayed in marketing collateral, RFP responses, and sales proposals subject to the Use of Mark Policy at /marks-policy.
Scope Statement (Public Summary)
A standalone document that names the boundary of the certificate — components, features, integrations, environment — and any explicit exclusions. The summary version is referenced from the public directory; the full Scope Statement is held under the certification record.
Evaluation Report (Confidential — Applicant Only)
A detailed technical report covering scope, methodology, evaluation activities, findings (with severity, ASVS reference, OWASP Top 10 mapping where applicable), corrective actions taken, and the conclusion. The Evaluation Report is confidential and is not disclosed beyond the applicant and Guardian’s certification file.
Findings Report (Issued during Stage 2; Confidential)
Detailed findings issued during Stage 2 with severity, technical detail and references to ASVS controls. Findings are not ‘recommendations to fix’ — they describe the issue and the relevant control. How the applicant addresses each finding is the applicant’s responsibility, with their own resources or any third party they engage.
Listing in Public Directory
Certificate facts (number, applicant, product, version, modules, level, scope summary, validity, status) added to /directory immediately on issuance. Status updates (suspension, withdrawal, renewal) reflected in real time.
Mark Usage License
Documented license to use the Guardian SecureApp™ certification mark in respect of the certified product, version and scope, in accordance with the Use of Mark Policy and UAF-GEN-CAB-02.
Timeline & Cost
How Long, How Much
Below are indicative timeline and pricing figures for typical Module A engagements. Both depend significantly on scope (size of the application, complexity of the technology stack, prior assessment evidence quality) and on applicant responsiveness during the findings closure phase.
Level 1
Basic
$2,000
onwards
Indicative Starting Fee *
Typical Timeline
4–7 weeks
For Internal tools, low-risk public sites, content portals
Level 2
Advanced
$4,000
onwards
Indicative Starting Fee *
Typical Timeline
6–10 weeks
For Customer-facing portals, e-commerce, B2B SaaS dashboards
Level 3
High-Risk / Critical
$7,000
onwards
Indicative Starting Fee *
Typical Timeline
10–16 weeks
For Net-banking, payment apps, EHR portals, trading platforms
Indicative starting fees apply to small organisations certifying a single, low-complexity web application on a single technology stack in a single environment, under Module A only. Final fees depend on scope, technology, evaluation man-days and complexity. Quotation is on request and is valid for 30 days. Fees do not influence the certification decision (ISO/IEC 17065 Clause 4.2 — impartiality requirement).
Full fee structure, payment terms, and impartiality disclosure at /process/fees. Quotation request at /quote.
Misconceptions
What Module A Is — and What It Isn’t
A few persistent misconceptions about web application security certification — repeated often enough that they distort procurement conversations and engineering planning. The framing below clears them up:
Misconception 1: ‘A certificate guarantees the application is unhackable.’
It does not. Certification confirms that the application met defined certification criteria, in defined scope, at the time of evaluation. Security is dynamic — code changes, dependencies update, new attacks emerge. Surveillance and recertification exist precisely to track change; no certification is a guarantee against future compromise. What it does provide is documented, accredited, third-party assurance that defensible security controls were in place when evaluated.
Misconception 2: ‘A VAPT report from a reputable firm is equivalent to certification.’
It is not. A VAPT report is a private, point-in-time technical assessment. A Guardian SecureApp™ Module A certificate is a formal third-party attestation issued by an accredited certification body, with a defined certification decision process, ongoing surveillance, public listing, and recognition through the international accreditation infrastructure. VAPT is one input to certification; on its own, it does not satisfy procurement, regulatory or contractual requirements that ask specifically for accredited certification.
Misconception 3: ‘ISO 27001 covers application security; we don’t need product certification.’
ISO/IEC 27001 certifies an organisation’s Information Security Management System — how the organisation governs information security across people, processes and technology. It is valuable, but it does not certify a specific software product. A 27001-certified organisation can — and many do — ship products with material application-level vulnerabilities. Mature buyers increasingly ask for both: 27001 for organisational assurance, Module A for product-level assurance. They are complementary, not substitutes.
Misconception 4: ‘OWASP standards are open and free, so I can self-certify against them.’
OWASP standards are indeed open and free to read. What is not open or free is the procedural infrastructure that turns an evaluation into an attestation that customers, regulators and procurement teams treat as authoritative. Self-evaluation against OWASP ASVS is excellent engineering practice and Guardian encourages it; but a self-evaluation is not, and cannot be, a third-party certificate. The certificate’s value lies precisely in the independent, accredited issuance — which a self-evaluation, by definition, cannot provide.
Misconception 5: ‘Module A is just a fancy VAPT.’
It is not. VAPT is one activity within the Stage 2 technical evaluation of Module A. The certification process additionally includes documentation review, architecture review, source code review (at higher levels), business-logic testing, formal scoping, an independent certification decision separate from the evaluation team (per ISO/IEC 17065 Clause 7.6), surveillance, public listing, complaints and appeals rights, and the procedural integrity of an accredited certification scheme. The breadth of the scheme is what produces the assurance the certificate carries.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions, Answered
Yes. SPAs are explicitly covered under Module A. Whether your front-end is built in React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, or any other client-side framework — with backends in Node.js, Go, Rust, Python, Java or any other language — Module A is the right module. The evaluation is technology-stack agnostic. The Scope Statement names the front-end and the application-tier backend code that together constitute the certified product.
Module A certifies the web application as an integrated product, including the application’s calls to its own backend APIs (V13 of ASVS). Module C separately certifies APIs as products in their own right — appropriate when the API surface is itself a product (a developer platform, a partner integration API, an embedded service). A SaaS that exposes both a customer-facing SPA and a public API would naturally combine Modules A and C on a single certificate.
Third-party dependencies are evaluated under V10 (Malicious Code) and V14 (Configuration). At Level 2 and Level 3, software composition analysis (SCA) identifies vulnerable dependency versions, license posture is reviewed (informationally), and SBOM presence and accuracy are verified. The evaluation does not certify the third-party dependencies themselves — those are governed by their own attestations — but it does evaluate your selection, integration and update hygiene of them.
No. Under Module A, the cloud provider’s underlying platform controls are not in scope — they are governed by the cloud provider’s own attestations (e.g., SOC 2, ISO 27001). What is in scope is your application’s controls and your configuration of the platform: identity, access control, data classification, network configuration of your application, secrets management, build and deployment hygiene.
Guardian evaluates against the current version of OWASP ASVS as adopted into the GSA-PR-01 scheme document. ASVS is updated periodically by the OWASP community; updates are reviewed by Guardian’s Technical Review Panel and adopted into the scheme through documented scheme revisions. The specific ASVS version applicable to your engagement is recorded on the Scope Statement and Evaluation Report.
Yes. The natural upgrade path is to certify at the level proportionate to current risk and to upgrade as the product enters higher-stakes contexts (regulated procurement, expansion into critical-infrastructure customers). The upgrade engagement is scoped to the additional evaluation depth required between the existing level and the target level, rather than a full re-evaluation from zero. Pricing is calculated accordingly.
No. Where source code review is conducted (Levels 2 and 3), it is reviewed via secure remote access in your environment wherever feasible, or in a controlled environment that meets your security requirements. Source code is not retained by Guardian after the engagement closes. Confidentiality is documented in the Certification Agreement and our Confidentiality Policy at /confidentiality.
Findings are issued with severity ratings. Critical and High findings must be addressed for certification to be granted. The applicant is given a defined period to address findings; Guardian re-verifies. One round of re-verification is included in the engagement. If the product cannot meet the criteria, the certification is not issued — fees for work performed are payable per the Certification Agreement, and there is no record of the failed application in the public directory. Guardian does not provide remediation advice.
No. Mobile applications (iOS / Android native) are outside the current Module A scope. They are a different product category and would require a different certification scheme. We will tell you this clearly at scoping rather than after evaluation begins. Where the mobile app and the web app share a backend, the web front-end falls under Module A and the shared backend may also fall under Module C.
Module A produces an ISO/IEC 17065-accredited third-party certificate against OWASP ASVS — the de facto international benchmark for web application security. Specific regulatory acceptability for any specific Indian regulator depends on the regulator’s mandate and any empanelment requirements (CERT-In empanelment is a separate accreditation under the Government of India). We are happy to discuss your specific regulatory driver during scoping; in many regulated procurement processes, Module A certification serves as evidence alongside other regulator-specific requirements rather than as a substitute for them.
ASVS Level 1 is the minimum baseline of application security controls — broader and more comprehensive than the OWASP Top 10 alone. The OWASP Top 10 lists ten categories of risk; ASVS Level 1 catalogues hundreds of specific verifiable controls organised across fourteen control families. An application that addresses the OWASP Top 10 but does not satisfy ASVS Level 1 is unlikely to pass Module A evaluation at any level.
Yes. Level selection is driven by risk, not by audience. An internal tool that handles regulated data, financial transactions, or admin access to high-value systems may justify Level 2 or Level 3 evaluation despite being internal-only. Conversely, a customer-facing marketing site that handles only public information may be appropriate for Level 1. Scoping conversation maps your product’s risk to a proportionate level.
All three, with mode varying by level and engagement design. Level 1 is typically grey-box or black-box. Level 2 is grey-box with sample-based source code review. Level 3 is white-box with comprehensive source code access and architecture review. The mode is documented in the engagement plan and is not optional — it is determined by the level and the scheme rules.
Guardian is technology-stack agnostic. Our evaluator pool covers JavaScript / TypeScript (React, Vue, Angular, Next.js, Nuxt, Remix), Python (Django, Flask, FastAPI), PHP (Laravel, Symfony), Ruby (Rails), Java (Spring), C# / .NET (ASP.NET Core), Go, Rust, Elixir (Phoenix), and others. We will not decline an engagement based on stack; we will, however, scope evaluation man-days to the complexity of the stack at the quotation stage.
No. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are an accessibility standard, not a security standard. Module A is anchored in OWASP ASVS / OWASP Top 10 — application security only. WCAG conformance is a separate, complementary attestation, addressed by accessibility-focused services rather than by Module A.
Cyber-insurance underwriting is increasingly attentive to evidence of application security, and accredited third-party certifications are part of the evidence universe insurers consider. Whether a Module A certificate produces a measurable premium reduction depends on the insurer, the policy structure and the broader risk profile of the insured. We do not make claims about specific premium impact; we do produce a certificate that insurers find more interpretable than self-declarations or private VAPT reports.
Ready to Get Started?
Apply for Certification
Submit a formal application. Initial response within 5 working days.
Apply NowRequest a Quote
Tell us about your product. Indicative quote within 3 to 5 working days.
Get a QuoteTalk to Our Team
Specific question or regulatory driver to discuss?
Contact Us