A scanner tells you which patterns matched. It cannot tell you whether anyone could actually use them, because it never tries. Our agents try, and only report what worked. In practice that turns a list of several hundred warnings into a handful of problems that are genuinely worth your engineers' week.

Not entirely, and we would not claim otherwise. The agents do the searching and the breaking in, at a scale no human team matches by hand. A senior researcher scopes the work, reviews every result and signs the report. For unusual targets and highly contextual judgement calls, people are still better, and that is exactly where the researcher's time goes.

Nothing counts until we can do it ourselves, twice. Every problem comes with steps that run start to finish, plus the exact file and line when you have shared your code. A known-vulnerability ID or a tool's warning never reaches your report on its own.

No, and plenty of assessments run without it. But it changes the results: with the code, agents understand your roles, your data flows and your intent, which means deeper coverage and fixes written against your actual lines rather than general advice.

You will usually see the first confirmed problems within 12 to 24 hours of starting. A full deep assessment, reviewed, signed and delivered, normally finishes inside a week, depending on how much is in scope.

Usually yes, and most engagements include a phase against the live system, but only with your written go-ahead: agreed boundaries, an agreed limit on how hard we push, a stop button and a named contact. Where that carries too much risk, we work against a copy or a staging environment instead.

The boundaries and the rate limit exist precisely so they do not. Testing is designed to demonstrate access rather than to damage or remove anything, destructive techniques are excluded by default, and you can halt everything with one message. Anything unexpected is reported to your named contact immediately, not at the end.

It stays under EU law, because Vexera is a Danish company. Every AI provider we use is contractually barred from training on it, the agents run in sealed environments with no route out, access is kept to a minimum, and everything of yours is deleted once the work is finished.

That is what the evidence is for. Auditors do not accept opinions; they accept a test they can follow and repeat. Every finding traces back to reproduction steps and a signed report, which is what SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIS2, DORA, PCI DSS and HIPAA reviews are asking you to produce.

Because your product changes every week, and an annual test only describes the version you had last spring. A weakness introduced in March should not sit there until next year's report. Most teams start with a single assessment to judge the quality of the work, then move to continuous coverage.

You pay nothing, and you still get a signed report setting out exactly what we tested and how far we got. Either way the scope and the price are agreed before anyone starts.