Point a security agent at your own application, within the scope you set. It signs in, maps what you really expose, checks the common weakness classes one at a time and verifies each finding before it reports it. You get the findings that hold up, a fix for each, and a retest once you've patched it.
A real test is methodical. The agent works in phases, verifies what it finds, and then checks that your fix actually worked.
List the addresses it may test and how far it may go. Looking and mapping is always allowed. Anything that changes data runs only where you allow it, and never on production unless your scope says so.
Give it a test account and it tests as a signed-in user would, then maps the services, pages and routes you actually expose.
It works through the common web weakness classes one at a time, on purpose, instead of firing a generic checklist at your address.
A suspicion is not a finding. Only what it can reproduce is reported as confirmed, with the evidence and a recommended fix.
After you patch, it repeats the original check and at least one variation of it, and marks the finding fixed or still open.
The rules of a scan live on GATE's side, where the agent can't rewrite them.
Set by the platform, not by the agent.
What you get back is a short list you can act on, not a wall of alerts.
Test only the live address, the way an outsider sees it, or add read access to your source so each finding can point to the file and line behind it.
Every confirmed finding carries what it takes to reproduce it, so your developer can see the same result instead of taking the report on trust.
Severity is set with rules the platform enforces, so a serious class of problem is never quietly rated as minor.
Each required class ends as found, tested and not present, or not applicable, with evidence either way.
The scan reports into a chat as it goes, with confirmed findings grouped by severity and a summary at the end.
A retest checks one finding again, with a variation, and never closes it just because someone marked it done.
Tell your agent what to test, which environment is safe to change and which test account to use. It runs the scan, reports what holds up and retests after your fix.
Meet your agentsSecurity testing of your own application where an AI agent does the tester's legwork: signing in, mapping what you expose, checking for known weakness classes and verifying what it finds. In GATE it runs in phases under rules the platform enforces, and it only reports what it can reproduce.
No. A scanner fires a fixed checklist and hands you a long log to sort through. This works class by class, verifies each candidate, and reports only what holds up, with a fix for each.
Looking and mapping is always allowed. Anything that changes data runs only where you allow it, and never on production unless your scope says so. It never guesses passwords and never mass-scans.
Yes. Give it a test account and signing in is the first phase, because the problems that matter are often the ones only a signed-in user can reach.
A title, a severity, the affected address, a plain description, the evidence that reproduces it and a recommended fix. With your source available, it also points to the file and line.
Ask for a retest. The agent repeats the original check and at least one variation, and the finding ends up marked fixed or still open.
Only applications you own or are allowed to test, at the addresses you list. It never tests anything outside that scope.
Invite only while we onboard a small number of businesses.