B-52: AI-Powered
Pentesting & Red-Teaming
Platform
An autonomous platform for penetration testing, application security and red teaming, across web and mobile applications and multi-host enterprise environments. It generates structured test plans, maps multi-stage attack chains, verifies exploitability, and produces audit-grade reports, with its own dashboard for tracking findings through to verified fix.
6,700+ assessments deep. Senior auditors on top. Choose fully autonomous testing, senior-auditor verification or a human-led engagement. The AI-based VA capability SEBI's May 2026 advisory asks regulated entities to adopt is already running in every engagement we deliver.
How you run it
Three ways to run B-52
The same platform underneath. What changes is how much of the work you want a person on, and that is a decision per engagement rather than a plan you are locked into.
Fully autonomous
You authorise the scope and targets. B-52 then tests, chains, validates and reports autonomously. This model does not carry a report signed under Security Brigade’s CERT-In empanelment.
Autonomous, expert verified
B-52 does the work; a senior auditor verifies every finding before it reaches you. Choose this or the human-led model when the engagement needs a report signed under Security Brigade’s CERT-In empanelment. Confirm the receiving body’s requirements while scoping.
Human led
A senior auditor runs the engagement with B-52 underneath, taking the coverage and the attack-chain mapping while keeping the judgement calls, the scoping conversations and the report narrative with a person.
The Problem
Why We Built It
Our mission has always been the same: eliminate every mundane, automatable task from our engineers' work, so they can focus entirely on the things only they can do, and do them better than any technology could.
Manual testing is inconsistent
Different testers produce different results. Coverage varies by skill, experience, and attention.
Scanners miss business logic
Commercial tools find signatures, not workflow abuse, privilege escalation, or chained exploits.
Reports are subjective
Without standardised methodology, report quality depends entirely on the individual auditor.
How It Works
Six phases, from discovery to report QA
The pipeline makes the work inspectable. QA is the final phase and runs on the completed report. Human verification depends on the delivery model you select.
Discovery
Map the authorised target: entry points, roles, routes and reachable functionality.
Planning
Build test cases from that map, including role boundaries and multi-step business flows.
Scanning
Work through the planned checks and identify candidates for exploitation within the agreed scope.
Exploitation
Establish exploitability and follow permitted attack paths. Production changes, persistence and movement beyond the initial host need written approval.
Reporting
Assemble the findings with the request, response and reproduction steps that an engineer can work from.
QA
Check the finished report before delivery. In the expert-verified and human-led models, a senior auditor also verifies every finding.
Red Teaming
Built for multi-host adversary simulation
The same engine that runs application pentests powers our red-team campaigns across enterprise environments, with asset tiering, credential inventory, lateral-movement chains, and OPSEC isolation.
Multi-host asset tiering
Automated 4-tier classification across hundreds of in-scope hosts (active apps, simple landings, infrastructure, dead surface) to prioritise effort.
Credential inventory + pivot mapping
Compromised-credential testing across the engagement scope. Cred-stuffing, password-reuse, privilege-escalation pivot mapping. Cross-target test cases for SSO bypass, credential reuse, and subdomain takeover.
Attack-chain mapping
Document a multi-stage attack path end to end, with the evidence for each permitted step and an explanation of its business impact. The number of chains depends on the target and what is found.
Lateral movement proofs
Privilege escalation paths and lateral movement validated as exploitable, not theoretical, including cross-segment pivoting.
Persistence testing
Stored XSS, web-shell-equivalent payloads, and scope-dependent C2-like persistence checks under red-team engagements. Impact is demonstrated within the scope you authorise.
OPSEC isolation
Per-window B52_SESSION isolation keeps engagement state, evidence, and tooling sandboxed. Hash-chained audit log captures every action for review.
Limits
What B-52 Is Not
AI in security is full of overpromises. Here is what B-52 actually does.
It generates structured test plans and runs them with exploitability verification — not signature-based pattern matching like Nessus or Acunetix.
It runs in three delivery models: fully autonomous, autonomous with senior-auditor verification before anything reaches you, and human led with B-52 underneath. You choose per engagement.
Every exploitability check is scoped, authorised, and documented. We do not run destructive payloads in production without explicit written approval.
It composes coverage across SAST-style and DAST-style passes, business-logic abuse, attack-chain mapping, and red-team scenarios — adapted per engagement.
Comparison
Choose the review and reporting model
| Fully autonomous | Autonomous, expert verified | Human led | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who authorises scope and targets? | Your authorised team | Your authorised team | Your authorised team |
| Who runs the assessment? | B-52 after scope sign-off | B-52, with senior-auditor verification | A senior auditor with B-52 underneath |
| Senior-auditor finding verification | Not included in this model | Every finding before delivery | Every finding before delivery |
| Evidence attached to findings | Request, response, reproduction | Request, response, reproduction | Request, response, reproduction |
| Signed under Security Brigade’s CERT-In empanelment | No | Available within the engagement | Available within the engagement |
| Report acceptance | Agree recipient requirements before testing | Agree recipient requirements before testing | Agree recipient requirements before testing |
Evaluating a provider
Run the same comparison on anyone
The delivery model settles who does the work. The worksheet beside it helps you evaluate the wider service: what a provider has to commit to in writing before “continuous” means anything, how a finding is verified before it reaches your engineers, what a retest SLA is actually measuring, what an assessor will accept, and a weighted scorecard for three providers side by side.
It names no vendor anywhere, including us. The last section covers when a scheduled deep assessment is the better instrument than a subscription.
Or book a walkthrough insteadPTaaS Evaluation and Scoping Template
Twelve sections you fill in: what “continuous” commits a provider to, the automated-versus-verified finding gate, coverage and retest, the reporting output, and a weighted scorecard.
Check your inbox
We've emailed you a link to download PTaaS Evaluation and Scoping Template.
The link expires in 48 hours. If it hasn't arrived in a few minutes, check your spam folder.
We couldn't send the download link. Please try again, or contact us and we'll email you PTaaS Evaluation and Scoping Template.
Ecosystem
Three Platforms. One Security Partner.
B-52 tests exploitability, Lemon tracks findings and fixes, and ShadowMap monitors external exposure between assessments.
B-52 Engine
Runs every SB assessment: the pipeline, exploit evidence and attack-chain mapping. Senior-auditor verification comes with the expert-verified and human-led models.
You are hereLemon Platform
Gives you real-time visibility into findings, remediation tracking, and verified fix confirmation, all in one dashboard.
Learn about Lemon →ShadowMap
Monitors your external attack surface continuously, so you are not blind between engagements.
Explore ShadowMap →Regulatory alignment · May 2026
SEBI just asked regulated entities to use AI-based VA tools. We've been delivering them for years.
SEBI Circular HO/13/19/12(1)2026-ITD-1_CIMGI/10873/2026 directs 19 categories of regulated entities to "Conduct Vulnerability Assessment using conventional and suitable AI-based Vulnerability Assessment Tools where possible." That is what B-52 has been doing across 370+ BFSI engagements, well before the regulator named it.
Before you commission a run
Evaluate the report, then agree the scope
Bring one target you are authorised to test and tell us what decision the result must support: a release, a customer review or a regulated filing. We can walk through a completed assessment before you commission your own.
- Inspect a finding: can your engineer reproduce it from the attached evidence?
- Inspect the test plan: does it cover the roles, workflows and boundaries that matter to your application?
- Choose the delivery model: agree whether a senior auditor verifies findings or leads the engagement, and whose signature the report requires.
- Agree the written scope, testing permissions, production limits and report requirements before testing starts.
See B-52 in Action
Send the target type, your testing window and who needs to accept the report. We will confirm the scope and the appropriate delivery model. If you want to inspect the output first, request a walkthrough of a completed assessment.