PWN-ALL · Cybersecurity & Software Development

PWN-ALL delivers four connected practices: penetration testing and attack simulation; incident response and digital forensics; secure Rust and Python software engineering; and vendor-neutral security consulting. Each engagement has a written scope, concrete deliverables, and agreed acceptance criteria.

Yes. PWN-ALL Auditing, Reviewing & Testing Cyber Risks CO. L.L.C is a Dubai, United Arab Emirates company founded in 2024 and operating under Dubai DET license No. 1324553. The company also lists D-U-N-S 571235572 and NCAGE 10G8W.

We work primarily with enterprises, government organizations, and high-value platforms worldwide. Engagements can be delivered remotely across jurisdictions, with communication available in 20+ languages; any location-specific legal, evidence, or data-handling requirements are agreed during scoping.

Yes. We can sign an NDA before sensitive details are shared and use Signal, PGP-encrypted email, or another client-approved channel. Access to client information is handled on a need-to-know basis under the controls agreed for the engagement.

Start with the outcome you need, the service or assets involved, urgency, deadlines, and any operating or regulatory constraints; do not send secrets before an NDA and secure channel are in place. We then confirm scope, exclusions, authorization, rules of engagement, deliverables, acceptance criteria, contacts, and schedule in writing.

Planned penetration tests can typically begin within 3–5 business days after scoping and written authorization, subject to current availability. Active incidents use the separate 24/7 response process, so an emergency should be raised immediately by phone or a secure messaging channel.

Pricing depends on assets, depth, deadlines, risk, evidence requirements, and deliverables. After scoping, you receive a written proposal; fixed-price options are available for clearly defined work, payment terms are set in the contract, and bank guarantees may be discussed for larger projects.

Authorized scopes can include web applications, APIs, external and internal networks, Active Directory, cloud environments, and mobile applications. Broader red-team engagements can also test identity, people, and physical controls when those activities are explicitly authorized.

No. Automated tools may support coverage, but the engagement is led by practitioners who map attack paths, test business logic, validate exploitability, and assess realistic impact. The result is evidence and prioritized remediation, not an unverified scanner export.

Testing follows OWASP and PTES-aligned practices through five phases: scoping and rules of engagement, reconnaissance and attack-surface mapping, safe exploitation, two-tier reporting, and retesting. The exact test cases are adapted to the agreed assets and threat model.

We test only assets covered by written authorization and agreed rules of engagement. The client must own the systems or have permission from the relevant owner or provider; third-party assets, social engineering, physical access, and destructive actions stay out of scope unless specifically approved.

The work is designed to minimize disruption, but testing can never be risk-free. Attack windows, rate limits, critical-system exclusions, escalation contacts, stop conditions, and rollback plans are agreed in advance, and destructive checks are not run without explicit approval.

Duration depends on scope, access, complexity, and retest needs. The service page gives indicative starting points of about two weeks for web and API testing, three weeks for network testing, and six weeks for a red-team exercise; the proposal provides the actual schedule.

You receive an executive summary for leadership plus technical findings for engineers, including evidence, affected assets, realistic impact, severity, and prioritized remediation guidance. The final scope can also define debriefs, remediation workshops, or evidence formats needed by internal stakeholders.

Yes, a retest of agreed remediated findings is included in the standard penetration-testing workflow. The proposal records the retest window, eligible findings, access needed, and how verified fixes will be reflected in the final report.

No. A penetration test is a time-bounded assessment of the authorized scope and cannot prove that no vulnerability exists. It reduces uncertainty and gives you evidence-based priorities, but security still depends on remediation, operations, monitoring, and future changes.

Yes. The 24/7 incident-response service handles containment, evidence preservation, forensic scoping, eradication, recovery, and post-incident hardening. For an active incident, call or use Signal immediately and avoid sending sensitive evidence through an unapproved channel.

No. The DFIR practice also handles data theft and extortion without encryption, business email compromise and payment fraud, account takeover, Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace and cloud compromise, insider cases, and compromised web applications or servers.

Isolate affected hosts from the network without powering them off, preserve volatile evidence, protect backups from further access, record actions, and open a response bridge. Do not broadly reboot, wipe, restore, decrypt, or negotiate before the incident lead and your legal or insurance stakeholders agree on a plan.

The incident service operates a 24/7 response bridge. Its stated service level is under 60 minutes from the first call to an analyst joining a shared bridge, with initial containment guidance starting during triage; actual containment time depends on access, incident scope, and the client's ability to execute actions.

Usually, yes, although shutdown can destroy volatile evidence such as memory-resident keys, injected processes, and active connections. Do not power the systems back on; preserve their current state and contact the response team so cold-triage and other evidence sources can be planned.

No. Recovery depends on the ransomware family, available keys or decryptors, evidence quality, backup integrity, system condition, legal constraints, and how much activity occurred after compromise. We evaluate clean backups, rebuilds, decryptor research, and key-recovery options, then state what is and is not recoverable.

Payment should not be the first response and does not guarantee recovery or deletion of stolen data. Recovery options and evidence should be assessed first; any operator communication or payment decision must involve the client, legal counsel, insurer where applicable, and sanctions clearance.

Depending on scope, deliverables can include an evidence and chain-of-custody record, response timeline, root-cause and initial-access findings, lateral-movement and exfiltration analysis, indicators of compromise, recovery priorities, and an insurer- or regulator-ready report with a hardening plan. Conclusions remain limited by the evidence preserved and the custody process maintained.

We build secure Rust and Python backends, APIs, data systems, automation, AI integrations, migrations, and security-critical production services. The same engineering practice also creates incident-specific forensic collectors, parsers, timeline builders, IOC or YARA scanners, and decryptor or key-recovery research tools.

Rust is used where memory safety, concurrency, predictable performance, and low-level control matter; Python is used where delivery speed, data, machine learning, orchestration, and integrations matter. Architecture work assigns the language per component instead of forcing an entire system into one stack.

The delivery model moves through discovery, architecture, implementation, hardening, and handover, with acceptance and performance tests agreed for the project. Handover can include source code, deployment assets, API contracts, architecture decisions, runbooks, diagrams, knowledge transfer, and 30-day post-launch support where contracted.

Consulting covers security architecture, business-focused risk assessment, GDPR readiness, audit preparation, policies and incident-response processes, secure-development integration, and role-specific training. Typical outputs include prioritized findings, a risk register with owners, a hardening roadmap, runbooks, and an audit-ready evidence pack.

No. Compliance readiness is technical and operational support, not legal advice or a certification guarantee; forensic findings depend on preserved evidence; recovery depends on incident conditions; and security testing cannot prove the absence of vulnerabilities. Each proposal defines measurable work and acceptance criteria without promising outcomes outside PWN-ALL's control.

PWN-ALL lists a Dark-Web and Leak Monitor, BotGuard bot detection, and a Vulnerability Scan Hub as separate products. It also provides 20+ free browser-based tools for tasks such as hashing, key generation, steganography, ransomware identification, and file or forensic viewing; the tools identified as client-side run locally in the browser without uploading the processed data.

Reset the affected account's password from a known-clean device rather than the compromised one, sign out and revoke all active sessions, remove any app passwords or connected-app access, and turn on multi-factor authentication. Preserve the mailbox together with the sign-in and audit logs and check for hidden forwarding or inbox rules, but do not delete messages, rules, or the account, because they are evidence. If the compromise is still active or any money movement is involved, call or use Signal to reach the 24/7 line instead of waiting on chat. The DFIR practice handles Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, and account-takeover cases end to end, from containment through root cause and hardening.

This is an active business email compromise and payment-fraud incident, so speed matters — contact your bank and the receiving bank immediately to attempt a recall or freeze of the transfer, and report it to the relevant authorities. Raise it with us on the 24/7 line rather than waiting on chat, especially while funds may still be moving. Our DFIR practice then investigates how the mailbox or account was accessed, whether invoice or banking details were altered, and what else was touched, while preserving the evidence for your bank, insurer, and any regulator. Keep the emails and account logs intact and avoid deleting anything so the forensic picture stays complete.

This is data theft and extortion without encryption, and it sits squarely within the DFIR practice even though no ransomware was deployed. The priority is to preserve evidence, scope what was actually accessed and exfiltrated, contain the access path, and understand the claim before anyone responds to the threat actor. Do not pay, negotiate, or reply to the demand before the incident lead and your legal and insurance stakeholders agree on an approach. Raise it on the 24/7 line, and share the threat messages through a secure channel rather than a public or unapproved one.

When you have indicators or a suspicion but no confirmed incident, the DFIR practice can review your logs, endpoints, and cloud and identity data to determine whether there is evidence of current or past intrusion, persistence, or unauthorized data access. It then reports whether there are signs of compromise and what to do next, and if clear malicious activity is found it moves into a full incident-response engagement with containment and forensics. While that scoping is underway, preserve existing logs and avoid reimaging or wiping systems, since that can erase the evidence needed to answer the question. If you are seeing an attack actively unfolding, call our 24/7 line or reach us on Signal right away rather than wait on chat.

Every response includes post-incident hardening once the immediate threat is handled. Using the root-cause and initial-access findings, the team gives you a prioritized hardening plan that closes the specific gaps the attacker used and reduces the paths for a repeat. For deeper, ongoing work, the consulting practice can turn that into a risk register with owners, updated policies and incident-response runbooks, and role-specific training, while the engineering practice can build any tooling the fixes require. Hardening reduces risk and improves resilience, but no provider can promise that a future incident is impossible.

Restoring service is important, but it does not tell you how the attacker got in, whether they are still present, or what data was accessed, and restoring can overwrite the evidence of all three. If the initial-access path and any persistence are not found and closed, the same intrusion can recur after recovery. It is worth having the DFIR team scope root cause, check for lingering access, and confirm what was exfiltrated, then apply targeted hardening — and preserve any remaining logs, images, or affected media rather than discarding them. If you are unsure whether the threat is fully gone, treat it as active and raise it on the 24/7 line.

Existing systems are squarely in scope; the engineering practice regularly takes on migrations, hardening, and security-critical production services rather than only greenfield builds. An engagement starts with a discovery phase to establish how the current code, data, and trust boundaries actually work before anything is changed, followed by architecture, implementation, and a dedicated hardening step. Where the primary need is a security assessment of existing application code, that is delivered through application penetration testing and the consulting practice's secure-development integration, and the right mix is scoped during the initial conversation.

Inherited, partially built, or stalled systems can be taken on, but the work still begins with a discovery phase that establishes the real current state, what exists, what runs, and where the risks and gaps are, before any approach is committed to. From there the standard model applies through architecture, implementation, hardening, and handover, each governed by a written Statement of Work with agreed acceptance criteria rather than an open-ended promise to fix everything. What is realistically achievable, and in what order, is set out once the current state is understood.

AI and LLM integration is an explicit part of the Rust and Python engineering practice, built secure-by-design through the same discovery, architecture, implementation, and hardening flow with agreed security and acceptance tests. The risks specific to LLM features, such as untrusted input reaching the model, exposure of sensitive data, what the model is allowed to access, and abuse or runaway-cost controls, are defined in scope and addressed as part of that work rather than bolted on afterwards. As with any security work, the engagement defines measurable controls and acceptance criteria rather than guaranteeing that a system cannot be misused.

You are not left with a bare code drop — the handover is built to be deployed and operated in your environment, and can include deployment assets, API contracts, architecture decisions, runbooks, diagrams, and knowledge transfer, with 30-day post-launch support where contracted. Because the work targets security-critical production use, a dedicated hardening step comes before handover. Exactly who performs and operates the deployment is agreed per engagement in the Statement of Work.

Embedding security into how a team already builds software is delivered through the consulting practice's secure-development integration, which is advisory: reviewing where security fits in your existing workflow, defining the checks and guardrails that belong in it, and giving developers role-specific guidance. Where that process needs custom automation or tooling built, for example bespoke scanners or checks, the engineering practice can implement it under a separate scope. The consulting side advises and defines the process and does not itself build software, so anything that has to be constructed is scoped as an engineering deliverable.

Rust and Python are the core: Rust where memory safety, concurrency, and predictable performance matter, and Python where delivery speed, data, machine learning, and integrations matter. Architecture work assigns the language per component rather than forcing an entire system into one stack, and existing systems and migrations are in scope, so the fit is decided from your requirements during scoping.

Consulting includes GDPR readiness and audit preparation: a gap assessment, the controls and policies to close it, and an audit-ready evidence pack, delivered vendor-neutral. This is readiness and preparation support, not legal advice, and it does not by itself guarantee compliance or certification — those depend on your operations and the assessing body. The outputs are prioritized findings, a risk register with owners, and a hardening roadmap you can act on.

Role-specific security training is part of the consulting practice, shaped around your stack, your risks, and the roles that need it. It is typically combined with the surrounding advisory work — secure-development integration, policies, and incident-response processes — so the training reflects how your teams actually build and operate. As with all consulting, the scope and outcomes are agreed up front.

Reviewing security architecture, or a proposed system design before it ships, is a core part of the advisory practice. We assess the design against your business risks and operating constraints, then return prioritized findings, a hardening roadmap, and, where useful, runbooks and a risk register with named owners. Because the practice is vendor-neutral, recommendations follow your risk rather than any product we might otherwise sell.

The difference is scope: consulting is vendor-neutral advisory work that assesses risk, reviews architecture, and prepares you for audits, but it does not build software and does not run emergency incident response. If you need code written or a system built, that is the secure software engineering practice; if an attack is live, that is the 24/7 incident-response process; and if you need vulnerabilities found and safely exploited under authorization, that is penetration testing. We will point you to the right practice, or combine them, based on the outcome you need.

You can reach us by email (PGP available), Signal, Telegram at t.me/pwn_all, WhatsApp, or phone at +971 58 594 6337, and a 24/7 line is available for active incidents. For anything sensitive we recommend Signal or PGP-encrypted email, and we ask that you not send secrets or credentials before an NDA and a secure channel are in place. If you have a live incident, call or use Signal immediately rather than waiting on chat.

Access to your information is on a need-to-know basis under the controls agreed for the engagement, with an NDA and a secure channel in place before any sensitive details are shared. The specific handling, storage, and retention terms are set as part of that agreement rather than a one-size-fits-all default, and we ask that you not send secrets before those are in place. For anything sensitive, Signal or PGP-encrypted email are the recommended channels.

Our published proof is the signed reference letters shown in the references section on the site, which you are welcome to review directly. Because confidentiality comes first, we do not describe specific clients or incidents beyond that, and any further detail can only be shared with the relevant client's permission and under NDA. We can also walk through illustrative, non-attributed examples of how a typical engagement runs on a call.

No, the website and this chat are informational and are not a contract. Every engagement is governed by a signed Statement of Work that sets out scope, exclusions, authorization, rules of engagement, deliverables, acceptance criteria, contacts, and schedule, with pricing confirmed in a written proposal after scoping. Nothing sensitive needs to change hands until an NDA and a secure channel are in place.

A typical web or API engagement opens with scoping, rules of engagement, and written authorization, then moves through reconnaissance and attack-surface mapping, safe exploitation of the agreed targets, two-tier reporting, and a retest of the remediated findings. Practitioners map attack paths and validate exploitability by hand rather than returning a raw scanner export, so you receive an executive summary for leadership, technical findings with evidence and severity, and prioritized remediation guidance. The service page gives an indicative starting point of about two weeks for web and API work, with the actual schedule and eligible retest scope set in the proposal. This is an illustrative outline; the exact test cases are adapted to the authorized assets and threat model.

A typical case opens on the 24/7 bridge with containment and evidence preservation, then forensic scoping to establish root cause, initial access, lateral movement, and what data was exfiltrated. Recovery is planned from what the evidence supports — clean backups, rebuilds, and where relevant decryptor research and key-recovery options — with the client, legal counsel, and insurer involved in any payment or negotiation decision. You receive a chain-of-custody record, a response timeline, indicators of compromise, recovery priorities, and an insurer- or regulator-ready report with a hardening plan. This is an illustrative outline; what is recoverable depends on the ransomware family, keys, backups, and evidence, and nothing is guaranteed.

A typical build moves through discovery, architecture, implementation, hardening, and handover, with acceptance and performance tests agreed for the project up front. The language is chosen per component — Rust where safety and performance matter, Python where speed, data, and integrations matter — and security is designed in rather than added at the end. Handover can include source code, deployment assets, API contracts, architecture decisions, runbooks, diagrams, and knowledge transfer, with 30-day post-launch support where contracted. This is an illustrative outline; the exact scope and acceptance criteria are set in the Statement of Work.