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. 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
B-52 scopes, tests, chains and reports without a person in the loop. Suited to continuous coverage across a large application estate, and to teams who want testing at a cadence no human schedule supports.
Autonomous, expert verified
B-52 does the work; a senior auditor verifies every finding before anything reaches you. This is the model the zero-false-positives claim on this page describes, and the one most regulated filings expect.
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
Five Phases. Every Engagement.
B-52 runs a structured audit pipeline on every assessment. The same rigour, coverage and consistency apply regardless of scope size or team composition.
Discovery
Technology stack fingerprinting, endpoint enumeration, parameter and API mapping, and infrastructure profiling. We build the application blueprint before testing begins.
Planning
Structured test plan per vulnerability category, compliance mapping, and impact-prioritised ordering before any payload runs.
Execution
Context-aware payload generation and business-logic abuse testing. Run against the same targets as the manual team during the six-month parallel validation programme, B-52 reached 90–95% of the pooled findings set.
Validation
Exploitability verification for every finding. Cross-referenced against spider results and JS analysis with L1/L2/L3 expert review.
QA + Report
Audit-grade structured reports with proof-of-concept code for critical findings and per-finding remediation guidance.
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
5–15 multi-stage chains per typical engagement. Each chain documented end-to-end (e.g., SQLi → session hijack → ATO) with business-impact quantification.
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
How B-52 Compares
| B-52 (SB) | Manual-Only Pen Test | Commercial Scanner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consistency | Identical every time | Varies by auditor | N/A |
| Coverage | Systematically tracked | Depends on auditor effort | Pattern-based only |
| Business logic testing | Systematic, flow-based | Depends on auditor | Minimal |
| False positives | Verified before report on verified models | Low | High |
| Multi-stage chains (cred → privesc → lateral → impact) | Mapped per engagement | Sometimes | No |
| Compliance mapping | Auto (6+ frameworks) | Manual | No |
| Expert review | On the verified and human-led models | Yes | No |
Evaluating a provider
Run the same comparison on anyone
The table above is our answer to a set of questions any buyer is entitled to ask. The worksheet beside it is those questions, unbranded: 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 is one layer of a platform stack that no other Indian cybersecurity firm can match.
B-52 Engine
Runs every assessment. Ensures consistent coverage, verified findings, and attack chain analysis on every engagement.
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.
See B-52 in Action
The best way to understand what B-52 delivers is to see the output. Book a call and we will walk you through a sample assessment, from discovery through attack chain analysis, so you can see the difference platform-driven testing makes.