Techflow Closes $2M enterprise deal after first pentest

An all-in-one finance solution to save businesses time and money

PCI DSS penetration testing findings usually point to a narrow set of problems in a high-consequence environment. The number of identified vulnerabilities tends to be lower than in broader pentests, but the findings that remain tend to fall on top of controls that matter directly to payment security: segmentation, access control, authentication, credential protection, and cryptographic handling of cardholder data. In our 2025 PCI assessments, projects averaged 3.1 vulnerabilities, yet more than one-third of findings were classified as High or Critical, which is exactly the pattern a control-oriented PCI assessment would be expected to produce.

For auditors and compliance leads, this is the key distinction from a general pentest. PCI testing is not intended to give a broad picture of every application issue in the organization. It is intended to test whether the systems in scope for cardholder data are properly protected and whether the controls used to limit access to that environment are operating effectively. Findings in this context, therefore, have direct bearing on both security risk and compliance assurance. A general pentest may provide a wide picture of application and infrastructure risk, while a PCI engagement is designed to determine whether the systems in scope are protected under the relevant PCI security standards and related PCI DSS requirements.

“Blaze's pentest report was the missing piece. We went from 'maybe next quarter' to signed contract in 2 weeks. Their attestation letter gave our buyer the confidence they needed."‍‍– Alex Chen, CTO & Co-founder, TechFlow

TechFlow was outgrowing its manual, redundant GRC processes

PCI DSS penetration testing findings usually point to a narrow set of problems in a high-consequence environment. The number of identified vulnerabilities tends to be lower than in broader pentests, but the findings that remain tend to fall on top of controls that matter directly to payment security: segmentation, access control, authentication, credential protection, and cryptographic handling of cardholder data. In our 2025 PCI assessments, projects averaged 3.1 vulnerabilities, yet more than one-third of findings were classified as High or Critical, which is exactly the pattern a control-oriented PCI assessment would be expected to produce.

For auditors and compliance leads, this is the key distinction from a general pentest. PCI testing is not intended to give a broad picture of every application issue in the organization. It is intended to test whether the systems in scope for cardholder data are properly protected and whether the controls used to limit access to that environment are operating effectively. Findings in this context, therefore, have direct bearing on both security risk and compliance assurance. A general pentest may provide a wide picture of application and infrastructure risk, while a PCI engagement is designed to determine whether the systems in scope are protected under the relevant PCI security standards and related PCI DSS requirements.

For auditors and compliance leads, this is the key distinction from a general pentest. PCI testing is not intended to give a broad picture of every application issue in the organization. It is intended to test whether the systems in scope for cardholder data are properly protected and whether the controls used to limit access to that environment are operating effectively. Findings in this context, therefore, have direct bearing on both security risk and compliance assurance. A general pentest may provide a wide picture of application and infrastructure risk, while a PCI engagement is designed to determine whether the systems in scope are protected under the relevant PCI security standards and related PCI DSS requirements.

A faster, more accurate solution to build and manage compliance frameworks

For auditors and compliance leads, this is the key distinction from a general pentest. PCI testing is not intended to give a broad picture of every application issue in the organization. It is intended to test whether the systems in scope for cardholder data are properly protected and whether the controls used to limit access to that environment are operating effectively. Findings in this context, therefore, have direct bearing on both security risk and compliance assurance. A general pentest may provide a wide picture of application and infrastructure risk, while a PCI engagement is designed to determine whether the systems in scope are protected under the relevant PCI security standards and related PCI DSS requirements.

For auditors and compliance leads, this is the key distinction from a general pentest. PCI testing is not intended to give a broad picture of every application issue in the organization. It is intended to test whether the systems in scope for cardholder data are properly protected and whether the controls used to limit access to that environment are operating effectively. Findings in this context, therefore, have direct bearing on both security risk and compliance assurance. A general pentest may provide a wide picture of application and infrastructure risk, while a PCI engagement is designed to determine whether the systems in scope are protected under the relevant PCI security standards and related PCI DSS requirements.

“Blaze's pentest report was the missing piece. We went from 'maybe next quarter' to signed contract in 2 weeks. Their attestation letter gave our buyer the confidence they needed."‍– Alex Chen, CTO & Co-founder, TechFlow

For auditors and compliance leads, this is the key distinction from a general pentest. PCI testing is not intended to give a broad picture of every application issue in the organization. It is intended to test whether the systems in scope for cardholder data are properly protected and whether the controls used to limit access to that environment are operating effectively. Findings in this context, therefore, have direct bearing on both security risk and compliance assurance. A general pentest may provide a wide picture of application and infrastructure risk, while a PCI engagement is designed to determine whether the systems in scope are protected under the relevant PCI security standards and related PCI DSS requirements.

Fewer spreadsheets, countless hours saved, and better visibility into compliance

For auditors and compliance leads, this is the key distinction from a general pentest. PCI testing is not intended to give a broad picture of every application issue in the organization. It is intended to test whether the systems in scope for cardholder data are properly protected and whether the controls used to limit access to that environment are operating effectively. Findings in this context, therefore, have direct bearing on both security risk and compliance assurance. A general pentest may provide a wide picture of application and infrastructure risk, while a PCI engagement is designed to determine whether the systems in scope are protected under the relevant PCI security standards and related PCI DSS requirements.

For auditors and compliance leads, this is the key distinction from a general pentest. PCI testing is not intended to give a broad picture of every application issue in the organization. It is intended to test whether the systems in scope for cardholder data are properly protected and whether the controls used to limit access to that environment are operating effectively. Findings in this context, therefore, have direct bearing on both security risk and compliance assurance. A general pentest may provide a wide picture of application and infrastructure risk, while a PCI engagement is designed to determine whether the systems in scope are protected under the relevant PCI security standards and related PCI DSS requirements.

“Blaze's pentest report was the missing piece. We went from 'maybe next quarter' to signed contract in 2 weeks. Their attestation letter gave our buyer the confidence they needed."‍‍– Alex Chen, CTO & Co-founder, TechFlow