Find exploitable weaknesses across networks and applications. We combine scoped testing, manual validation and clear evidence, so your security team can prioritise fixes and verify them through a retest.
VAPT that validates exposure and gives every remediation an owner
Service overview
Vulnerability assessment and penetration testing examines how weaknesses could expose systems, data and business workflows. Sparkr Digitals combines discovery, controlled exploitation and manual validation to distinguish exploitable findings from scanner noise within a written, authorised scope.
We define the assets, test windows and rules of engagement before testing. Every validated finding includes evidence, business context, severity and remediation guidance.
Our methodology draws on OWASP WSTG, ASVS 5.0 and MASVS, alongside PTES and NIST SP 800-115. We apply CVSS v4.0 scoring with business context, then separate executive decisions from technical reproduction details. Retesting records what is resolved, partially resolved or still open.
The problem
A scanner output is not a tested risk decision.
Why vulnerability reports go unused
Scanner alerts alone do not establish exploitability or business impact. Unclear scope, weak evidence and missing owners leave teams debating severity while fixes wait. We make authorisation, validation and closure part of the engagement.
The traps
Trap 0101 / 05
Permission before testing
Testing without written scope
An informal request is not sufficient authorisation. We require written permission, asset ownership confirmation and rules of engagement, including windows, exclusions, stop conditions and escalation contacts.
Trap 0202 / 05
Coverage beyond the edge
Internal exposure left untested
An external scan cannot describe internal attack paths. We agree external and internal network coverage separately, including credentials, segmentation boundaries and permitted lateral movement tests.
Trap 0303 / 05
Proof, not scanner noise
Findings nobody has validated
Automated results can misstate exposure. We manually validate findings within the agreed limits, preserve reproducible evidence and distinguish confirmed vulnerabilities from unverified observations.
Trap 0404 / 05
Severity with context
Scores detached from real risk
A severity score needs the affected asset and attack conditions beside it. We use CVSS v4.0 vectors and business context to support prioritisation without hiding assumptions behind a single number.
Trap 0505 / 05
Closure needs evidence
Fixes closed without a retest
A remediation ticket is not proof of resolution. We retest agreed findings after fixes, record residual exposure and update the closure status so security owners can evidence the outcome.
The process
How we deliver VAPT
We agree scope, access and accountable owners before delivery. Each stage has review points and documented decisions, so security, compliance and operations can see what has been tested, what remains open and who owns the next action.
Step 01
Scope
Confirm assets, ownership, written authorisation and rules of engagement, including exclusions and stop conditions.
Step 02
Discovery
Map the agreed external and internal networks, web applications, APIs and mobile attack surfaces.
Step 03
Validation
Combine controlled testing with manual validation; preserve evidence without unnecessary disruption or data access.
Step 04
Risk and report
Apply CVSS v4.0 scoring and business context; produce executive priorities and technical remediation guidance.
Step 05
Retest
Verify agreed fixes, document residual findings and issue a retest record with accountable closure decisions.
What you get
Defined controls, documented decisions, clear owners.
Authorised scope
Asset inventory, written authorisation, test windows and approved rules of engagement.
Executive report
Business exposure, prioritised risks and remediation decisions for senior owners.
Technical report
Validated findings, affected assets, reproduction evidence and practical remediation.
Severity register
CVSS v4.0 vectors with business context, limitations and prioritisation assumptions.
Remediation plan
Actions, accountable owners and a risk-based sequence for addressing findings.
Retest record
Evidence of resolved, partially resolved and open findings after agreed fixes.
What systems can you assess?
We scope external and internal networks, web applications, APIs and mobile applications. Cloud configuration and identity attack paths can be included where authorised. Coverage, credentials and exclusions are agreed before testing begins.
What authorisation do you require?
Written authorisation is mandatory. Rules of engagement define assets, windows, allowed techniques, stop conditions and contacts. Social engineering and denial-of-service testing require explicit separate permission; neither is included by default.
Which testing standards do you use?
We draw on OWASP WSTG, ASVS 5.0 and MASVS for application testing, alongside PTES and NIST SP 800-115. The chosen checks depend on the asset type, scope and agreed objectives.
What happens after the assessment?
We walk through the executive and technical reports, agree remediation priorities with your owners and schedule a scoped retest. Retest evidence records remaining exposure rather than treating a closed ticket as proof.
How does VAPT relate to CBN rules?
VAPT helps evidence vulnerability and risk management under the CBN Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework 2024 for DMBs and PSBs. We confirm licence-specific obligations; that framework should not be applied indiscriminately to every PSP.
How do you protect personal data?
We minimise data access, agree evidence handling and restrict report distribution. Testing supports NDPA 2023 security obligations but does not certify compliance. Written authorisation remains essential under the amended Cybercrimes regime.
How long does an assessment take?
Timing depends on asset count, access, application complexity and testing windows. We provide milestones for testing, reporting and retesting after scope approval.
How is a VAPT engagement priced?
Pricing reflects asset coverage, manual testing depth, access constraints and retest scope. The proposal states exclusions and deliverables so your team can compare the work, not just a scan count.
What the CBN's baseline standards for automated AML mean for your stack
7 min read
The final March 2026 standards set implementation timelines for DMBs and OFIs. Review integrations, case management, reporting controls and the evidence your roadmap needs.
The 72-hour clock: what NDPA and the GAID demand of your systems
6 min read
A notification deadline needs an operational response. Connect breach assessment, escalation, evidence preservation and notification decisions under NDPA and the GAID.
What a regulator-ready VAPT report contains
5 min read
A useful report connects scope, validated findings, severity and remediation. See why executive decisions and technical retest evidence need different levels of detail.
Sophos or Fortinet? Choosing the security stack for a Nigerian enterprise
6 min read
Compare firewall, endpoint and secure-access requirements before choosing products. Sizing, licence scope, logging and support arrangements shape the decision.
Designing internal tools people actually use
7 min read
Lessons from Relix CRM, Victora and Interoly: map daily tasks, permissions and exceptions before designing screens. Keep operational decisions visible to the people doing the work.
Other services
