Relevant when…
You want to compare automated execution with an explicitly scoped engineer review.
This is editorial fit guidance based on public positioning. We have not independently tested this provider or confirmed availability.
What the provider documents
- Assessment scope
- AI agent testing · MCP assessment · RAG security · Prompt injection · Tool misuse
- Engagement model
- Hybrid service
- Deliverables
- Findings link triggering inputs and tool paths to impact, reproduction steps and fix guidance.
- Deployment
- Not published
- Pricing
- Not published
- Retesting
- Finding status and retesting are described; confirm the agreed window.
Source for documented facts: the provider’s official offering ↗. “Not published” means not recorded in the reviewed source, not that an option is unavailable.
Before you request a proposal
- Is Casco Supervised included in the proposed scope?
- Which test accounts and safe actions must you prepare?
- Which findings receive manual reproduction?
Ask the provider to put authorized systems, exclusions, evidence handling, timing and acceptance criteria in the written scope. Do not send credentials or vulnerability evidence through an initial inquiry.
Sources & verification
- Casco — official service information ↗
Supports the summary, service model, scope and recorded engagement facts above. Evidence status: provider-stated.