BattleTester
Automated penetration testing that crawls your web app and returns prioritized findings fast.
Tagline
Find real vulns before release
Role-aware pentests for web apps, minus the noise
A faster way to get pentest-style findings
Automated scanning that tracks auth, roles, and abuse paths
BattleTester is the fast, role-aware pentest layer for web apps.
The strongest differentiator on the page is not just scanning; it’s end-to-end crawling, login handling, and mapping endpoints across user roles. That makes the product feel closer to application-aware security testing than a generic scanner.
A better alternative to noisy vulnerability scanners that bury teams in false positives.
The page explicitly contrasts itself with 'quantity' and says it focuses on 'real vulnerabilities.' That is a sharp wedge against tools people already distrust when they generate endless low-value findings.
Get a pentest-style report without waiting for a pentest engagement.
The product promises a detailed report with severity ratings and reproduction steps from a simple scan flow. That positions BattleTester against the long lead times and high cost of traditional penetration testing firms like Bishop Fox or Cobalt-style engagements, even though those are more comprehensive.
Primary user
Security engineer or product security lead responsible for testing a web app before release
ICP #1
Security engineer at a 20-200 person SaaS company shipping weekly
Pain
They need to verify auth, access control, and common web vulns before releases, but manual pentest cycles are slow and expensive.
Why this solves
BattleTester offers a fast scan flow, role-aware crawling, and concrete reproduction steps, so they can get a usable report in minutes instead of waiting on a traditional pentest vendor.
ICP #2
Founding engineer at a B2B SaaS startup with a tiny security budget
Pain
They know they should test for SQLi, XSS, SSRF, and broken access control, but they do not have in-house AppSec staff or time to run tools manually.
Why this solves
The product packages the common attack surface into a guided workflow and claims to reduce noise, which is exactly what a lean team needs to get an actionable baseline assessment quickly.
ICP #3
Freelance penetration tester or security consultant serving SMB clients
Pain
They need to cover more client apps without spending hours on initial recon and repetitive vulnerability discovery.
Why this solves
BattleTester can automate crawling, endpoint mapping, and first-pass vulnerability checks, letting the consultant spend time on validation and reporting instead of grunt work.
Strengths
- +The product category is instantly clear: automated penetration testing for web apps.
- +The feature list is specific and credible, naming actual vulnerabilities and mentioning reproduction steps.
- +The 'quality over quantity' message gives a differentiated stance against noisy scanners.
Weaknesses
- −It looks like a generic early-access landing page, not a product buyers can trust with security work; there is no proof beyond one redacted sample report.
- −The page lacks buyer-specific outcomes like audit readiness, release gating, or time saved versus manual pentests.
- −There is no pricing, no tiering, no mention of scan duration, no limits, and no clarity on depth of coverage or supported auth flows.
- −The call to action is weakly differentiated: 'Start Security Scan' and 'Join our Discord' read hobbyist, not enterprise.
- −The page does not show integrations, export formats, team workflows, or how findings are assigned and tracked.
Fix these
- Replace the vague hero with a sharper outcome statement tied to release readiness, e.g. 'Find broken access control and auth flaws before your next deploy.'
- Add a real sample finding section with redacted screenshots, request/response examples, and a before/after reproduction walkthrough.
- Spell out trust signals: how ownership verification works, what data is stored, whether scans are read-only, and how AI is constrained.
- Create persona-specific messaging blocks for startups, product security teams, and consultants, each with different pains and proof points.
- Add workflow and integration details: Slack alerts, Jira export, PDF/CSV output, scan scheduling, and team collaboration features.
Drop-in replacement copy
Headline
Find real vulns before release
Automated web app pentesting with role-aware crawling and reproducible findings.
Catch auth and access bugs early
BattleTester maps your app across login flows and user roles so it can surface broken access control and auth issues that generic scanners miss. That makes it useful before a release, not after an incident.
Get findings you can actually use
Every report includes severity ratings and reproduction steps, so engineers are not left guessing what broke. The goal is fewer alerts and faster decisions.
Reduce scanner noise
The product is built to filter out low-value output and focus on real vulnerabilities. That means less triage, less distrust, and less time wasted on false positives.
Scan the modern attack surface
BattleTester checks for SQLi, XSS, SSRF, open redirects, JWT issues, broken access control, business logic flaws, and configuration problems. It gives lean teams a fast first pass without hiring a pentest firm for every release.
FAQ
Do I need to verify ownership before scanning?
Yes. BattleTester is designed for authorized testing only, so ownership verification is part of the flow before a scan starts.
Does it handle login-protected apps?
Yes. It supports AI-assisted crawling and login handling so it can test authenticated areas and user-role-specific paths.
How noisy are the results?
The product is intentionally tuned to reduce false positives and prioritize findings that can be reproduced. It is built for usefulness, not maximum alert count.
What kind of report do I get?
You get a report with severity ratings, finding details, and reproduction steps. It is meant to be something an engineer can act on quickly.
Is this a replacement for manual pentesting?
No. It is a fast automated first pass for web apps, especially useful before releases or when you need baseline coverage quickly. For deeper validation or high-risk systems, manual review still matters.
Most scanners miss broken access control. BattleTester crawls your app like an attacker, across roles and login flows, then returns prioritized findings with reproduction steps. Built for teams that need a useful report before the next deploy.
Pentest reports should not take weeks. BattleTester turns website ownership verification + role-aware crawling into a security report in minutes. SQLi, XSS, SSRF, JWT issues, access control, business logic. Less noise. More real bugs.
I got tired of noisy scanners. So I built BattleTester to focus on the stuff that actually hurts: auth bugs, broken access control, SSRF, and logic flaws. If a finding can't be reproduced, it shouldn't clutter the report.
The best vuln reports are short. Not 200 low-value warnings. Just the real issues, severity, and steps to reproduce. BattleTester is my attempt to make automated pentesting feel like a solid first pass, not a firehose.
Manual pentests are slow and expensive. If you're shipping weekly, waiting on a vendor for basic auth and access control checks is a bad workflow. BattleTester gives teams a fast baseline scan so release blockers show up early.
False positives waste security time. The worst scanner is the one that teaches your team to ignore alerts. BattleTester is built around filtering noise so security people can focus on findings worth investigating.
Watch it crawl the app end-to-end. BattleTester handles login flows, maps endpoints across user roles, runs web attack checks, and returns a report with severity + reproduction steps. That's the part most scanners fake.
Here is the difference in output. Other tools: a wall of alerts. BattleTester: prioritized findings, what broke, where it broke, and how to reproduce it. That gap matters when you're trying to ship.
Security teams hate noise. That's why the pitch here is simple: real findings, reproducible steps, and role-aware coverage. If your current scanner makes you open every ticket twice, you already know why this matters.
The report is the product. BattleTester doesn't just say 'something looks bad.' It tells you severity and how to reproduce it. That's the difference between 'interesting' and 'actionable.'
Angle: release readiness for SaaS teams
If you ship web apps weekly, security testing usually has one of two bad modes: 1. Wait days or weeks for a manual pentest. 2. Run a scanner and get buried in noise. BattleTester is my attempt at a third path. You enter the site, verify ownership, and it crawls the app like an attacker would: login flows, user roles, endpoints, and common web vuln checks like SQLi, XSS, SSRF, JWT issues, and broken access control. The point is not to flood you with alerts. The point is to give you a report you can actually use before a release. What I kept hearing from small security teams and founding engineers was simple: they do not need more output. They need fewer false positives, better reproduction steps, and something that helps them decide whether a deploy is safe. That is the bar I built toward. If you're responsible for release security at a small team, I'd love feedback on what would make this trustworthy enough to use in your workflow.
Angle: noise filtering as the wedge
Most security tools have a quiet failure mode: they produce so much output that teams stop trusting them. That is the problem I wanted BattleTester to attack. Instead of trying to look impressive with a giant list of checks, the product focuses on crawling the app, handling auth, mapping roles, and surfacing findings that can be reproduced. The core idea is simple: - fewer alerts - better context - clearer severity - reproduction steps that a human can verify That sounds obvious, but in practice it is surprisingly rare. I think there is a real opening for tools that behave more like a careful security engineer on a tight deadline, and less like a scanner trying to maximize its output count. If you have used Burp, ZAP, Detectify, or Intruder and still ended up manually triaging everything, that is the gap I am trying to close.
Angle: for startups and lean engineering teams
Founding engineers usually know the security basics they should cover. The problem is time. You know you should check for SQLi, XSS, SSRF, broken access control, JWT mistakes, and weird business logic paths. But when you're a small team, the manual process gets pushed behind shipping, support, and everything else. BattleTester is meant to make that first pass cheap enough to actually happen. Upload the target, verify ownership, let it crawl, and get a report with prioritized findings and reproduction steps. Not a replacement for serious manual work when you need it. Just a fast way to avoid shipping obvious holes while you are still moving fast. I’d rather help teams catch one real auth issue before launch than brag about finding a hundred low-value warnings. If you run security at a startup, I’d be curious: what would make an automated pentest useful enough to trust before a release?
No visuals for this kit yet.
Tagline
Automated pentests for web apps
Description
BattleTester crawls your web app, tests common attack paths, and returns prioritized findings with reproduction steps. Built for teams that need a useful security report fast, without drowning in false positives.
Maker's first comment
I built BattleTester because I kept seeing the same pattern: teams knew they needed security testing, but the options were either slow manual pentests or noisy scanners that dumped a pile of alerts on them. The product is aimed at giving you a solid first pass on web app security after you verify ownership. It handles crawling, login flows, multiple user roles, and common web vuln checks, then turns that into a report that is meant to be read by a real engineer, not just a compliance checklist. What I care about most is whether the output is actually useful. If a finding is not reproducible, it should not waste your time. If the report does not help you decide what to fix first, it is not doing its job. I’m especially looking for feedback from people who run release security at small teams, or from consultants who need a faster way to triage client apps. What would make you trust this enough to use it in a real workflow?
Pinned maker comment
Would love feedback on three things: whether the findings feel trustworthy, whether the report is clear enough to act on, and what integrations would make this fit into your release process.
Meta
Your scanner is probably wasting time.
Hypothesis: security leads at SaaS startups care more about fewer real findings than more alerts. BattleTester crawls the app, handles auth and roles, and returns prioritized vulns with reproduction steps. Try it before the next release.
Google Search
Automated web pentest for startups
Targeting founding engineers and security leads who need a fast baseline assessment before shipping. Assumption: they want a pentest-style report without paying for a full manual engagement every time. BattleTester finds real web app issues fast.
Reddit Promoted
Manual pentests are not scalable.
Hypothesis: indie SaaS founders and security folks in small teams will click on a tool that reduces noise and gives reproducible findings. BattleTester verifies ownership, crawls login flows, and surfaces prioritized issues instead of alert spam.
Subreddits
r/SideProject
Show the problem-solution split: noisy scanners vs a role-aware pentest workflow, with a redacted report screenshot and one concrete finding example.
Rules: Share what you built and what you learned; avoid pure promotion and do not post vague launch hype.
r/indiehackers
Build-in-public post about why security tools are hard to trust, and how you designed the product to reduce false positives.
Rules: Focus on lessons, metrics, and process. Self-promo is allowed only when it is tied to a real story or insight.
r/microsaas
Target tiny SaaS founders who need a quick baseline security check before launch or an external review.
Rules: Keep it practical, specific, and useful. No generic marketing copy.
r/EntrepreneurRideAlong
A founder story about building a security product for people who ship fast and cannot wait on manual pentest cycles.
Rules: Audience likes transparent founder journeys; lead with the story, not the pitch.
r/cybersecurity
Ask for feedback on the report format, false-positive reduction, and what makes an automated web pentest tool credible.
Rules: Be technical, disclose limitations, and do not oversell. The sub is skeptical of marketing language.
Communities
Post a detailed build story, then reply to every comment with specifics about the workflow, pricing, and what you learned from early testers.
Launch with a technical, honest title and a concise explanation of the exact problem solved. Only comment with useful technical detail, never hype.
Ask for feedback on coverage, false positives, and report quality. Participate in unrelated security discussions first so the ask is not dropping in cold.
Startup chat communities in Slack or Discord
Join founder-focused groups you already have access to, then offer free scans for a handful of members in exchange for blunt feedback on trust, workflow, and report usefulness.
Cold outreach template
{firstName} — saw {context} and thought BattleTester might help if you're doing release security on a small team. It crawls a web app after ownership verification and returns prioritized findings with repro steps, so you can catch auth and access-control issues before ship. Want me to run a free scan on one app and send you the redacted report?
Product Hunt timing
Launch on Tuesday at 12:01am Pacific Time. That gives you the full US workday for security and startup buyers to see it, while avoiding weekend launch fatigue and Monday inbox overload.
Indie Hackers post ideas
- 01Why I built a quieter automated pentest tool
- 02How I reduced false positives in web vuln reporting
- 03What early users actually wanted from a security scan
Competitor alternatives
Current tone of voice
Direct, technical, and slightly playful; the clearest example is the 'Quality Over Quantity' section with the line 'Other tools: quantity BattleTester: quality.'
Your kit is ready. Sign up free to unlock, takes 10 seconds.
7 more X posts · 2 LinkedIn · Product Hunt copy · ad hooks · 100-user playbook · landing critique