gRPC API Testing Strategies for Enterprise Leaders

APIs now power the digital backbone of enterprises, but they also expand the attack surface. Recent reports show that 84% of organizations experienced an API security incident in the past year, with API breaches leaking ten times more data on average than traditional ones. As businesses move toward microservices and high speed architectures, gRPC is gaining popularity for its performance and efficiency.

Over 579 verified companies already use gRPC in production environments. In some workloads, it has proven to be seven to twelve times faster than REST. This speed helps support real time communication and internal service efficiency, but it also increases the complexity of monitoring and securing API interactions.

The challenge for security leaders is clear. gRPC’s binary format and stream based design limit the effectiveness of traditional security tools. Unknown or untested gRPC services can run in production, creating blind spots and exposure risks. Security teams need visibility into these APIs and assurance that every gRPC request is authenticated, authorized, and validated at runtime.

What is gRPC API Testing?

gRPC API testing verifies that your gRPC services function correctly, consistently, and securely. It ensures that each service method defined in .proto contracts behaves as expected under various conditions, across environments, inputs, and client implementations.

Unlike REST APIs that use human-readable JSON over HTTP/1.1, gRPC uses binary Protocol Buffers over HTTP/2. This brings performance gains but also changes how testing is approached. Standard tools like browsers or cURL cannot interact with gRPC services directly. Instead, testers use gRPC clients or specialized testing tools to simulate client server communication.

Effective gRPC testing typically includes:

1. Functional Testing: Verifies that each remote procedure call performs its intended business logic. For example, a GetUser call should return the correct user or an appropriate error.
2. Integration Testing: Confirms that client and server components communicate reliably over HTTP/2, including message serialization and deserialization.
3. Contract Validation: Ensures that the service adheres to its defined .proto schema, including data types, message structures, and error codes. This is critical for cross language and cross platform consistency.
4. Performance Testing: Measures how the service responds under load, including latency and throughput benchmarks.
5. Security Testing: Validates authentication, authorization, and data protection mechanisms to safeguard against misuse and exploitation.

How to test gRPC API?

Testing gRPC APIs involves simulating client calls and validating that services respond correctly across expected and edge case conditions. The process is similar to REST API testing but tailored for gRPC’s binary format, typed schemas, and streaming capabilities.

A structured approach to test gRPC APIs effectively is described below:

1. Set Up the gRPC Client Environment

Start by importing the service's .proto definition file. This allows you to generate strongly typed client stubs in your preferred programming language. These stubs serve as local proxies for the remote service, enabling you to invoke RPC methods with structured inputs. Many testing tools and libraries support proto imports or use gRPC server reflection to discover available services dynamically. For example, you can use grpcurl or Postman’s gRPC client to interact with the service without writing custom code.

Example: Use a generated Python stub to call CreateOrder() with different inputs, just like calling a native method.

‍

2. Call RPC Methods with Valid and Invalid Inputs

Test each RPC with a wide range of input conditions. Begin with valid inputs to ensure the core functionality works as intended. Then, introduce malformed or incomplete payloads to validate how the service handles errors.

Be sure to test across all RPC types:

• Unary (single request, single response)
• Server streaming (one request, multiple responses)
• Client streaming (multiple requests, one response)
• Bidirectional streaming (multiple requests and responses over time)

Example: For a StreamMetrics() RPC used in monitoring, simulate a sudden burst of client messages to test how the server handles high frequency inputs.

‍

3. Validate Responses and Status Codes

Each RPC should return expected message fields, correct data types, and appropriate status codes. gRPC provides standard status codes like OK, UNAUTHENTICATED, NOT_FOUND, or INTERNAL. Validate response payloads, check for metadata, and verify that error messages are informative.

Example: A GetUser() RPC called with an invalid user ID should return NOT_FOUND with a helpful message like “User does not exist.”

‍

4. Test Error Scenarios and Edge Conditions

Push the service beyond happy paths. Simulate missing credentials, deadline expirations, partial streams, or unsupported message formats. This helps ensure resilience. A robust gRPC service should handle such scenarios gracefully without crashing or leaking sensitive information.

Example: Call an RPC without a valid auth token. The server should return an UNAUTHENTICATED error immediately, without processing the request body.

‍

5. Automate Tests and Integrate into CI/CD

Add gRPC tests to your CI/CD pipelines to enforce early validation. Run them on every build to detect regressions and catch broken contracts before deployment. Tools like Postman, Buf, or Datadog Synthetic Monitoring support automated gRPC testing, allowing you to schedule health checks or gate releases on test outcomes.

Example: After each merge, your CI pipeline runs gRPC tests for all internal services to verify contract compliance and basic authentication behavior.

How to perform gRPC Security Testing

Security testing for gRPC APIs involves more than just basic input checks. It requires a deep understanding of how gRPC’s architecture operates, how its protocol differs from traditional APIs, and how real world attacks can exploit weaknesses in business logic, authentication, or serialization layers. 

The following approaches offer a comprehensive strategy for securing gRPC services: 

1. Penetration Testing and Threat Modeling

Manual testing remains one of the most effective ways to find high impact vulnerabilities in gRPC-based services. Red teams or security engineers manually inspect .proto definitions and actively craft requests against live gRPC endpoints, often bypassing client libraries to simulate malicious behavior.

Example: A DeleteUser() method may check if the request has a valid authentication token but fail to verify the user’s role. A penetration tester could send a crafted request using a basic user token to delete records that should only be accessible to admins..

‍

2. Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Modern DAST tools can now understand gRPC’s use of HTTP/2 and Protocol Buffers, enabling them to test APIs dynamically during runtime. These tools parse .proto files or use gRPC server reflection to identify service definitions and method signatures. Automated testing in CI/CD environments is critical. gRPC specific DAST tools can be integrated into pipelines to enforce security gates on every build. They simulate real attack patterns, including injection, broken authentication, and malformed protocol buffers, making them a vital component of shift-left security.

Example: A DAST scanner might target a GetInvoice() RPC with various payloads, some missing tokens, others containing SQL injection strings or boundary value anomalies and track the server’s responses for improper behavior.

‍

3. Configuration and Transport Security Validation

gRPC services rely on TLS for secure transmission, but misconfigurations can introduce vulnerabilities. If deployed in a cloud environment, platform native options like Google ALTS (Application Layer Transport Security) should be verified for consistency and correctness.

Security testing should validate that:

• TLS is always enabled with strong cipher suites
• Self signed or expired certificates are not accepted in production.
• Mutual TLS (mTLS) is enforced for internal service to service calls.

Example: A misconfigured backend might allow fallback to plaintext over HTTP/2 or accept weak TLS versions like TLS 1.0. Automated scanners and configuration audits should simulate rogue clients and untrusted certificate chains to ensure strict validation.

‍

4. Authentication and Authorization Testing

Each gRPC method must enforce authentication and granular role based access control (RBAC). Additionally, test how the server handles token replay or signature tampering, weak JWT validation, or static API keys, as these are common misconfigurations. Security testing should:

• Invoke protected RPCs with invalid, expired, or missing credentials.
• Attempt privilege escalation by reusing tokens or impersonating another user
• Verify session expiration and refresh logic.

Example: A GetBillingData() method may use JWT tokens to gate access. A tester could use a valid token for a standard user to request admin level data and confirm whether role restrictions are enforced both at the perimeter and deep within the service logic.

‍

5. Input Validation and Injection Testing

Despite using a binary format, gRPC endpoints can be vulnerable to injection flaws. Security tests should verify that input fields are validated and properly escaped, especially in methods that interact with downstream systems such as databases, file systems, or shell processes.

Tests should include:

• SQL injection and command injection attempts.
• Boundary fuzzing (overly long strings, unexpected types).
• Deserialization attacks in custom embedded fields.

Example: A SearchUser() method that builds a SQL query using user input without parameterization could be targeted with SQL injection payloads such as "' OR '1'='1".

Even Protobuf fields can be manipulated at the byte level using custom clients or scripting frameworks like grpcurl or Postman’s gRPC client.

‍

6. Business Logic Abuse Testing

The most severe gRPC vulnerabilities often stem from misused logic rather than low level bugs. Custom test scripts should simulate realistic edge cases and attempt to exploit logic that the API designer may not have anticipated. Security tests would simulate:

• Large or looping transaction values.
• Bypassed daily limits using parallel streams.
• Upload flooding via client streaming RPCs that exhaust server memory.

Example: A TransferFunds() method might allow negative values or lack proper rate limits. 

‍

Modern platforms like Levo support targeted test scenarios with customized payloads. They can simulate chained behaviors, session state changes, and user role transitions that expose flaws in how gRPC services manage logic and state.

gRPC API Testing Tools

1. Levo (Levo.ai)

Overview

Levo is an automated API security testing platform built to handle modern API architectures (including gRPC) with a developer-first, “shift-left” approach. It embeds deep security tests early in the software lifecycle, continuously testing services without slowing down agile development. 

Levo’s platform automatically discovers all API endpoints (even undocumented internal gRPC methods) by observing real traffic, giving security teams full visibility into the API attack surface. 

By leveraging runtime data and real user interactions, Levo generates context-aware test cases that mirror actual usage and abuse scenarios, helping organizations catch critical issues like broken authorization and data leakage before attackers do.

The result is a CISO-friendly solution that balances visibility (comprehensive API coverage and risk dashboards), velocity (CI/CD integration for rapid feedback), and governance (compliance evidence and policy controls) for gRPC services and beyond.

Features

1. Automatic API Discovery & Coverage: Levo’s sensor passively instruments live API traffic (including internal service calls) to identify every gRPC service, method, and data flow in your environment. This ensures full coverage even endpoints or RPC calls that lack documentation or are meant for internal use are catalogued and tested. You no longer need to provide Protobuf schemas or endpoints manually; Levo builds a complete inventory from observed runtime behavior.
   ‍
2. Runtime-Informed Payload Generation: Instead of random fuzzing, Levo uses actual API interactions to guide the creation of attack payloads that are schema-valid and contextually relevant. 
   
   For example, suppose a gRPC method expects an integer ID or a specific message format. In that case, Levo has seen real requests and can craft malicious variants that still conform to the expected format. This schema-aware fuzzing maximizes test effectiveness. The tool can inject SQL or script payloads inside legitimate gRPC messages, or test for issues like XML/JSON injection in a way that the service will actually process. 
   By grounding tests in how the API truly behaves, Levo exercises more profound business logic and avoids the false negatives that naive scanners produce when they send invalid data.

3. Intelligent Access Control Testing: Role-aware attack generation is a standout capability. Levo automatically detects user roles, tokens, and object IDs from real traffic, then simulates privilege abuse to uncover authorization flaws. It will attempt scenarios like one user accessing another user’s data (detecting BOLA/IDOR issues) or a normal user calling admin-only RPC methods all without you scripting custom tests. 
   
   For example, if one gRPC call is GetUserBalance(user_id), Levo might try swapping in another user’s ID or replaying an admin token to see if the service improperly returns the data. These BOLA tests and role mutations are done automatically using live data, a method far more effective than static tests and even feasible without providing multiple test accounts upfront. This means Levo can reveal critical authorization gaps in your gRPC APIs that other tools would miss or require extensive manual setup to find.

4. Comprehensive Vulnerability Coverage: Levo covers the full gamut of API security issues out-of-the-box. It systematically tests for OWASP API Top 10 risks (such as injection flaws, authentication lapses, and excessive data exposure) as well as business-logic abuses and misconfigurations. This includes tricky issues like mass assignment, improper assets management, and insecure defaults. Notably, Levo also checks for misconfigurations, such as overly permissive CORS policies, and leverages browser awareness to gauge their actual impact. It will only flag a CORS issue as critical if it’s truly exploitable in modern browsers. By prioritizing findings that have genuine exploitability (versus theoretical bugs), Levo provides high-fidelity results that development teams can trust.
   ‍
5. Real-Time Debugging & Retesting: The platform is designed to be developer-friendly for triage. Real-time logs and detailed traces in the UI accompany every test execution. If a test fails or triggers an error, teams can immediately see the request/response data, environmental details, and, when available, stack traces. This transparency makes it easy to distinguish an actual vulnerability from a test configuration issue (for instance, an auth token that failed to refresh). Levo allows users to adjust parameters, fix issues, and re-run tests on demand so that you can iterate quickly. This tight feedback loop, findings with concrete evidence and one-click retest, helps developers and security engineers resolve issues faster without lengthy guesswork.
   ‍
6. CI/CD Integration & Shift-Left Automation: Levo was built to plug directly into modern development workflows. It supports CI/CD pipeline hooks and on-demand or scheduled test runs, ensuring continuous testing whenever code changes or new gRPC endpoints are added. Tests can run in parallel alongside your build/deploy process and are optimized not to slow down releases (only blocking the pipeline if a truly critical exploit is confirmed). Security checks thus keep pace with high-velocity DevOps cycles, turning API testing into an automated “unit test” for security. Additionally, Levo’s results feed into dashboards and can integrate with issue trackers, so both security and development teams get immediate, actionable feedback within their existing toolchains.

Pros

1. Runtime-informed payload generation: Crafts test inputs based on real API traffic patterns, yielding highly relevant and effective gRPC test cases grounded in actual usage.
2. Business logic abuse detection: Goes beyond standard vulns to simulate complex abuse scenarios (fraud, workflow bypasses, etc.), catching logic flaws and unusual attack paths that generic scanners often overlook.
3. Role-aware access control testing (BOLA/IDOR): Automatically tests for horizontal and vertical privilege escalation by leveraging real user roles and IDs uncovers broken object-level authorization without requiring multiple user accounts.
4. Test user nomination support: Allows teams to designate or simulate test accounts and sessions, enabling safe testing (even in production-like environments) without risking real user data or violating privacy.
5. Full coverage of internal/undocumented APIs: Observes live gRPC traffic to discover endpoints that aren’t documented, ensuring even shadow or internal APIs get audited for security.
6. Real-time debugging and retesting: Developer-friendly interface with live logs and one-click retest capability, speeding up diagnosis and verification of fixes when issues are found.
7. CORS misconfiguration testing (browser context): Evaluates Cross-Origin Resource Sharing settings with an understanding of browser behavior, reducing noise by highlighting only genuinely exploitable CORS weaknesses.
8. Shift-left automation and CI/CD integration: Seamlessly integrates into dev pipelines and workflows, enabling continuous, automated API testing from code commit through deployment (supporting fast development without sacrificing security).

Cons

1. Customization effort for advanced use: Unlocking Levo’s full potential (e.g. tailoring tests to very specific business logic or environments) may require additional configuration and tuning, especially during initial setup.
2. Developer-centric workflow: Levo is designed with dev and DevSecOps integration in mind, teams without a strong developer involvement or those preferring turnkey solutions might face a learning curve aligning the tool with their processes.

Best For

Security-conscious engineering teams managing extensive gRPC services particularly mid-to-large enterprises (in finance, healthcare, SaaS, etc.) that require full API visibility, continuous automated testing, and strong compliance governance without slowing development velocity. These organizations will benefit most from Levo’s depth of testing and integration into the development lifecycle, gaining confidence that even complex internal gRPC APIs are thoroughly vetted against the latest threats

2. Postman

Overview: 

Postman is a widely used API development and testing platform that now supports gRPC alongside REST and GraphQL. It provides an intuitive GUI for crafting requests and examining responses, lowering the barrier for teams to test gRPC services without writing code. 

Postman’s gRPC support (introduced in Postman v9.7.1) integrates into its collaborative workspaces and collections, so teams already familiar with Postman can extend their existing workflows to gRPC testing. While it excels at functional testing and team collaboration, it is not designed for high-scale performance testing or very complex test logic out of the box.

Features:

1. Full gRPC Method Support: Supports all four RPC types: unary, client-streaming, server-streaming, and bidirectional streaming.
2. Proto Import and Server Reflection: Allows importing .proto files or using server reflection to discover available services and methods. Enables autocompletion and client-side type checking for message fields.
3. Interactive Messaging: Automatically generates example request messages. Users can send metadata, and search or filter messages in streaming responses.
4. Collaboration and Integration: Supports saving and sharing gRPC requests and proto schemas within Postman collections. Users can sync proto files with version control systems such as GitHub or GitLab and use environment variables for dynamic testing.
5. Streaming Control: Includes tools to cancel requests mid-stream and incrementally view server-side streamed responses.

Pros:

1. Ease of Use: The user-friendly interface, along with autocompletion, makes gRPC testing accessible to teams without deep knowledge of RPC internals.
2. Ecosystem and Familiarity: Leverages Postman’s well-established ecosystem. Teams can test REST, GraphQL, and gRPC within a single platform using familiar workflows.
3. No-Code Testing: Enables functional testing without writing code. Supports basic scripting for pre-request logic and test assertions where needed.
4. Community and Integrations: Backed by a large user community and extensive documentation. Integrates well with CI/CD pipelines and monitoring systems.

Cons:

1. Limited Performance Testing: Postman is not designed for load testing or high-concurrency scenarios. Teams will need separate tools for stress or performance testing.
2. Workflow Complexity at Scale: For complex test cases that involve chaining, conditional logic, or deep validation, maintaining Postman collections can be cumbersome. Custom scripts are supported but may be limited compared to code-based frameworks.
3. Heavy UI for Large Projects: The graphical interface can be resource intensive. Testing large payloads or long-lived streams may be more efficient in lighter, CLI-based tools.
4. Feature Access and Licensing: Some collaborative and team-oriented features require a paid plan. Handling large .proto files in the UI can also be challenging compared to working in code.

Best For:

Teams looking for a collaborative, GUI-based solution to test gRPC services alongside REST and GraphQL. Particularly suited to organizations already using Postman for API workflows. While powerful for functional testing and sharing test artifacts, it is less suited for advanced automation or performance benchmarking.

3. Insomnia

Overview:

Insomnia is an open-source API client and design platform developed by Kong. It supports gRPC alongside REST, GraphQL, and WebSocket protocols. Designed for developers, it offers a sleek UI and plugin extensibility. Insomnia supports all four gRPC call types and provides intuitive controls for streaming. While it excels at manual, exploratory testing, it currently lacks built-in automation for CI pipelines.

Features:

1. Complete gRPC Support: Handles unary, server-streaming, client-streaming, and bidirectional streaming RPCs through a unified interface.
2. Proto File and Server Reflection Import: Accepts .proto files or entire directories, and can dynamically fetch service definitions using server reflection. Autocompletes message fields based on the schema.
3. TLS and Certificate Management: Allows toggling between secure and insecure connections, with support for SSL certificate verification. Client certificate support is under development.
4. Environment Variables and Templates: Enables use of environment variables, JWT tokens, and templated requests for dynamic data and secure token handling.
5. Request Management: Supports canceling in-flight and streaming requests. Maintains request history within workspaces, though persistence is somewhat limited.

Pros:

1. Open Source and Extensible: Free to use, with customizable features through plugins and active community contributions.
2. User-Friendly Interface: Clean, minimalist UI that supports dark mode and keeps focus on request and response data.
3. Advanced Streaming Capabilities: Offers real-time visibility and control for testing streaming RPCs, especially useful for bidirectional communication.
4. Multi-Protocol Support: Supports REST, GraphQL, SOAP, and gRPC in a single interface, simplifying test workflows across different API types.
5. Familiar Workflow Management: Features workspace and environment support, making it easy to organize tests across development, staging, and production environments.

Cons:

1. No Built-in Automation: Lacks automated test execution or collection runners for gRPC. Not ideal for integration into CI/CD pipelines.
2. No Request Chaining: Cannot pass the output of one request into another, which limits testing of multi-step or dependent workflows.
3. Limited Request History Portability: Moving gRPC requests across workspaces requires re-importing proto files, which can be cumbersome in large or multi-service projects.
4. Missing Timeout and Deadline Configuration: Does not currently expose gRPC deadline or timeout settings in the UI. Also lacks integrated scripting or test assertion features.
5. Smaller Ecosystem: Compared to Postman, Insomnia has a smaller plugin ecosystem and fewer advanced integrations. Cloud sync and collaboration features are gated behind paid plans.

Best For:

Developers and QA engineers looking for a lightweight, open-source solution to test and debug gRPC APIs manually. Particularly well suited for teams working with streaming RPCs or seeking a flexible local testing tool without dependency on commercial platforms.

4. Kreya

Overview:

Kreya is a modern, cross-platform desktop client designed specifically for testing gRPC APIs. Built from the ground up with a graphical interface, it simplifies sending and debugging gRPC requests. While it also supports REST and GraphQL, Kreya stands out for its robust gRPC support and developer-friendly workflow. It offers a free tier with all core features and emphasizes security by storing data locally.

Features:

1. Visual Request Builder: Allows users to construct gRPC requests through form inputs. Complex messages are displayed in a structured view, making it easier to interact with than raw JSON or binary formats.
2. Proto Import and Discovery: Supports importing .proto files, descriptor sets, or using server reflection. Definitions are stored by reference to make them easier to share and reuse across teams.
3. Streaming and Metadata Support: Fully supports client-streaming, server-streaming, and bidirectional RPCs. Users can send and receive messages incrementally and add custom metadata for testing auth headers or other use cases.
4. Authentication Integration: Built-in support for TLS, JWT, Google IAM, and OAuth2. Tokens and credentials can be reused across requests, making secure testing more efficient.
5. Environment Management: Organize tests into projects and collections, with support for environment variables, credentials inheritance, and secure storage of secrets.
6. Offline and Local Storage: All configurations, proto files, and test data are stored locally by default. This is particularly useful when testing sensitive or internal APIs.

Pros:

1. User-Friendly Interface: Streamlined and modern UI that simplifies gRPC testing. Ideal for teams who prefer GUI over CLI or code-based tools.
2. Cross-Platform Compatibility: Runs on Windows, macOS, and Linux, providing consistent experience across development environments.
3. Efficiency in Testing: Saves time by reducing repetitive tasks, such as re-authenticating. Token reuse and project templates enhance testing speed.
4. Multi-API Protocol Support: Enables teams to use a single tool for gRPC, REST, and GraphQL. Developers can test multiple API types in a unified interface.
5. Security-Conscious Design: Stores all data locally with no cloud sync unless explicitly enabled. This supports privacy and compliance requirements in enterprise settings.

Cons:

1. Proprietary Software: Not open source. Although actively maintained, teams that prefer open tools may consider this a limitation.
2. No Native Automation: Focused on interactive testing. Kreya does not support scripting or test automation, making it unsuitable for CI/CD integration.
3. Smaller Ecosystem: Compared to tools like Postman, Kreya has fewer third-party integrations and a smaller user community.
4. Lacks Load and Security Testing: Does not support load testing or automated security scanning. Users must rely on other tools for performance benchmarks or vulnerability assessments.
5. Requires Access to Proto Definitions: Proto files or server reflection are necessary for setup. Teams without access to these may need to prepare extra.

Best For:

Development and QA teams looking for a GUI-based gRPC client that is easy to use and supports comprehensive functional testing. Kreya is especially helpful in early-stage development and debugging, where quick feedback and visual control over streaming requests and authentication are priorities. It is ideal for organizations that prefer local tools for security-sensitive environments and need a streamlined experience for gRPC.

5. grpcurl

Overview:

grpcurl is a command line utility that allows testers to interact directly with gRPC services without needing client code. It supports reflection and protobuf descriptors, which makes it easy to discover service methods, inspect request and response schemas, and craft structured calls during security testing. For security teams, grpcurl provides a fast way to validate authentication and authorization controls, probe for input validation weaknesses, replay or fuzz request payloads, and observe server behavior under unexpected conditions. Its ability to operate over plaintext and TLS sessions makes it especially useful for testing real world deployments while keeping workflows simple and repeatable.

Features:

1. Supports interactive calls to gRPC services without needing generated client code
2. Works with server reflection to automatically list services and methods
3. Allows sending custom request payloads in JSON for quick testing
4. Supports TLS, mTLS, and custom certificates for secure endpoint testing
5. Can import protobuf files when reflection is not enabled

Pros:

1. Very lightweight and easy to install
2. No need to write code to test or explore gRPC endpoints
3. Ideal for quick validation of auth, input handling, and error responses
4. Compatible with both reflective and non-reflective gRPC services
5. Offers flexibility for testing local, cloud, and production-like environments

Cons:

1. Limited to request and response-level testing, not suitable for deep fuzzing
2. Requires protobuf descriptors when reflection is disabled, which some teams may not have readily available
3. Not ideal for large-scale automated security testing
4. Manual payload crafting can be time consuming for complex request flows

Best For:

grpcurl is best for security engineers, testers, and developers who need a fast and reliable way to inspect, validate, and troubleshoot gRPC services. It is particularly useful for quick exploratory testing, verifying security controls, and performing lightweight endpoint checks during development or pre-deployment reviews.

6. StackHawk

Overview: 

StackHawk is a developer-centric dynamic application security testing (DAST) tool designed to scan APIs (including gRPC services) for vulnerabilities. It works by simulating real attack scenarios, leveraging known exploits like those in the OWASP API Top 10 or custom test patterns, and observing how the API responds. This approach lets teams find security weaknesses in gRPC endpoints before attackers do. StackHawk integrates into CI/CD pipelines to enable “shift-left” API security testing, so developers can automatically run scans on every build and catch issues early in the development process.

Features:

1. CI/CD Integration: Seamlessly plugs into build pipelines and DevOps workflows, triggering automated security scans on each code commit or deployment.
2. Active Vulnerability Scanning: Uses an OWASP ZAP-based engine to actively send malicious inputs and fuzz gRPC API calls, checking for common flaws like injections, authentication bypass, and misconfigurations.
3. Schema Ingestion: Supports importing API definitions (OpenAPI/Swagger for REST, GraphQL schemas, or gRPC protobuf schemas via reflection or descriptor files) to understand the API surface and craft relevant test cases.
4. Custom Test Scenarios: Allows creation of custom attack patterns and test suites, enabling teams to mimic real-world user flows or edge cases specific to their application’s logic.
5. Multi-Protocol Support: Handles various API types, from REST and GraphQL to SOAP and gRPC, ensuring even high-performance gRPC microservices are covered by security tests.

Pros:

1. Developer-First Design: Intuitive, developer-friendly interface and tooling that make it easy for engineering teams to adopt. Developers with minimal security background can quickly interpret results and remediate issues (a core “shift-left” philosophy).
2. Seamless Shift-Left Integration: Built to run in CI/CD and automate tests early in the SDLC, which helps catch API vulnerabilities before production. This integration fosters a security-as-code culture without slowing down agile development.
3. Real Attack Simulation: Unlike static analyzers, StackHawk executes real attacks against running gRPC endpoints (SQL injection, XSS, authentication exploits, etc.) to see actual behavior, providing more realistic security coverage.
4. Broad API Support: Capable of testing REST, GraphQL, SOAP, and gRPC APIs. Critically, for gRPC, it understands protocol specifics (such as ProtoBuf payloads and reflection) and includes gRPC-specific attack vectors, ensuring microservice architectures aren’t left untested.
5. Integrations and Customization: Offers a wide range of integrations (CI tools, issue trackers, Slack, etc.) and allows customization of scanning rules. Security teams can tailor the tool to their stack, and even create custom vulnerability checks to simulate business-logic attacks beyond the defaults.

Cons:

1. Limited Logical Coverage: Relies on a predefined set of attack patterns (built on the OWASP ZAP engine), so it may miss complex business logic or authorization flaws that don’t have known signatures. This means certain logical vulnerabilities or multi-step attack scenarios could slip by untested.
2. No Live Traffic Analysis: StackHawk only tests what you feed it (code or API specs) and cannot monitor real runtime API traffic for anomaly detection or unknown endpoints. It lacks external discovery capabilities if an API or endpoint isn’t documented in code or a schema, the tool won’t find it. This absence of runtime context can also lead to more false positives, since the scanner doesn’t see how the API is used in reality.
3. Requires Schema Setup: gRPC services require reflection to be enabled or a proto descriptor file provided for the scanner to work. Likewise, REST/GraphQL scans require up-to-date API specs. Maintaining these definitions can be labor-intensive, especially in large organizations with many services, and any undocumented API changes might be missed.
4. Stateful Flow Limitations: Out-of-the-box, the tool struggles with testing complex, stateful sequences or chained requests. Each endpoint is largely tested in isolation, so scenarios like multi-step authentication flows or transactional sequences may not be fully covered without custom scripting.
5. Alert Noise and Context: Findings are scored using the generic OWASP risk rating, without insight into your application’s specific context. This one-size scoring can mis-prioritize issues for your business. Additionally, the scan results list technical vulnerabilities with links to general cheat sheets but offer limited contextual guidance or actionable fix snippets, which can overwhelm teams with false positives or low-priority alerts.

Best For:

StackHawk is best suited for fast-moving engineering teams (small to mid-sized organizations or product units) that build APIs and microservices with gRPC and want a quick, automated security check as part of development. It’s ideal for development-centric security (“DevSecOps”) environments where developers themselves run and fix scans in CI/CD. Teams adopting microservice architectures and looking to shift security left will benefit from StackHawk’s easy setup and support for gRPC. However, large enterprises or those needing deep runtime analysis and advanced logic testing might find StackHawk better as an augment for early-stage testing rather than a comprehensive enterprise solution.

‍

7. ACCELQ

Overview:

ACCELQ is a codeless test automation platform that supports end-to-end testing across web UIs and APIs, including gRPC. Designed for enterprise QA teams, ACCELQ enables non-developers to automate gRPC test scenarios using a no-code interface. It integrates proto-based test generation and validation into broader regression and integration test pipelines. The platform leverages AI to streamline test maintenance and ensure API stability across builds.

Features:

1. No-Code gRPC Testing: Testers can configure gRPC test steps without scripting. A visual builder defines gRPC method calls, input payloads, and validations.
2. Proto Integration: Supports proto compilation via protoc. gRPC connection objects reference compiled stubs to enable method invocation from the UI.
3. Dynamic Execution & Assertions: Executes gRPC calls and converts binary responses to JSON for readable assertions. Built-in validation rules check status codes, response fields, and business logic.
4. Multi-Environment Support: Allows switching endpoints and credentials across dev, staging, and production through parameterized configurations.
5. CI/CD and Reporting: Integrates into pipelines to automate API test runs. Offers consolidated reporting across UI and API results with test traceability and logs.
6. AI-Powered Maintenance: Uses AI to detect changes in proto definitions and assist in test updates, reducing breakage during contract evolution.

Pros:

1. Codeless Automation: Empowers manual testers and QA to test gRPC APIs without writing code.
2. Unified Testing Platform: Combines gRPC, REST, UI, and DB testing in one environment for full-stack validation.
3. Enterprise Features: Offers version control, requirement traceability, and integrations with ALM tools such as Jira, making it ideal for regulated industries.
4. AI Maintenance Assistance: Suggests updates to gRPC test steps when proto contracts change, minimizing manual rework.
5. Team Collaboration: Business analysts and testers can jointly define high-level scenarios that drive backend and frontend validation.

Cons:

1. Initial Learning Curve: Requires upfront training to model gRPC connections and workflows. Proto compilation adds complexity for beginners.
2. Tooling Overhead for Small Teams: May be excessive for basic gRPC testing needs. Better suited to mature automation ecosystems.
3. Proto Pre-Compilation Required: Proto files must be compiled into Java stubs manually, which is less seamless than live proto importing in tools like Postman.
4. Cost Consideration: As a commercial enterprise platform, its pricing may not fit smaller teams focused solely on API testing.
5. Limited Custom Logic: Codeless design may restrict advanced test scenarios. Complex flows might be harder to model without scripting support.

Best For:

Enterprises or large QA teams already invested in ACCELQ who want to extend their test coverage to gRPC services. Ideal for environments with mixed technical expertise, where centralized management of UI and API testing is critical, and where test coverage, traceability, and maintainability are key priorities.

8. ghz

Overview: ghz is an open-source performance testing tool designed specifically for benchmarking gRPC services. It generates high volumes of native gRPC traffic using protocol buffers and helps teams assess latency, throughput, and error rates. Operated via the command line, ghz is ideal for developers and performance engineers who want to load-test microservices at scale. It also offers a basic web UI for visualizing test results in real time.

Features:

• Command-Line Interface: Run load tests via terminal with flags or config files (JSON/YAML). Supports setting target host, method, payloads, request volume, and concurrency levels.
• Flexible Test Configurations: Customize metadata headers, payloads (from file or template), and secure connections using TLS. Supports parameterization and random input generation.
• Streaming Support: Tests both unary and streaming RPCs, including server- and client-streaming. Ideal for simulating high-throughput scenarios.
• Detailed Metrics and Reports: Outputs latency percentiles, throughput (QPS), error counts, and more. Supports formats like JSON, CSV, and HTML. Results can be pushed to monitoring tools like InfluxDB.
• Web Dashboard (ghz-web): Optional UI mode provides live graphs and charts for visualizing latency and throughput metrics.

Pros:

• Purpose-Built for gRPC: Supports protocol buffers natively, ensuring accurate testing without workarounds or protocol translation.
• High Performance: Written in Go and lightweight. Efficient use of system resources enables high concurrency from a single machine.
• Developer-Friendly: Simple installation and scripting make it easy to integrate with CI/CD or local test pipelines.
• Comprehensive Metrics: Provides rich insights into performance trends, helping teams track regressions or tune services.
• Free and Open Source: Actively maintained and community supported. No licensing overhead for adoption.

Cons:

• Not for Testing: Limited to load and latency testing. Does not verify business logic or correctness of responses.
• Single-Method Focus: Designed for testing one RPC at a time. Multi-method scenarios require external scripting.
• Basic UI: Included web dashboard is functional but minimal. More advanced visualization requires exporting results to other tools.
• Manual Scaling Required: To simulate large-scale traffic, you must distribute tests across machines manually. No built-in orchestration.
• Proto or Reflection Required: Needs access to proto files or gRPC server reflection to define test payloads accurately.

Best For:

Developers and performance engineers looking to benchmark gRPC microservices. ghz is excellent for determining QPS thresholds, tuning gRPC server performance, or tracking latency changes over time. Ideal for CI pipelines that monitor performance regressions in gRPC endpoints. Particularly valuable in microservice architectures where services can be individually stress-tested for throughput and response characteristics.

9. Datadog (Synthetic Monitoring for gRPC)

Overview:

Datadog’s Synthetic Monitoring includes support for gRPC API testing, enabling continuous uptime and performance checks for gRPC services. These tests simulate real-world client calls at scheduled intervals or during CI/CD events, helping teams detect regressions, misconfigurations, or outages early. Unlike ad hoc test tools, Datadog synthetics integrate with broader observability workflows for end-to-end service assurance.

Features:

• Unary RPC Support: Automates unary gRPC calls with configurable inputs. You can define target host, service, method, and payload.
• Protobuf Import: Imports .proto definitions for schema validation and test setup. “Generate Example” feature auto-populates test messages.
• Assertions: Validate response payload, metadata, and status codes (e.g., OK vs UNAVAILABLE). Response time thresholds can also be defined.
• Health Check Protocol Integration: Supports grpc.health.v1.Health/Check for lightweight, heartbeat-style service checks.
• CI/CD Compatibility: Tests can run post-deployment to gate releases. If tests fail, deployments can be blocked or rolled back.
• Global and Private Test Locations: Supports running tests from public cloud or private networks (e.g., within a VPC).
• Alerting and Dashboards: Visualize success/failure, latency, and alerts through Datadog’s central dashboard with customizable rules and thresholds.

Pros:

• Proactive Monitoring: Ensures production gRPC endpoints are continuously verified and errors caught early.
• Unified Observability: Test metrics are available alongside infrastructure and application performance metrics for full-stack visibility.
• Easy Setup: Tests are created via UI using proto-based forms. Minimal scripting or developer involvement is needed.
• Secure Testing: Auth support includes mTLS and API token configuration. Internal-only services can be tested from private cloud agents.
• Granular Alert Control: Avoid false positives with flexible alerting (e.g., fail after 3 consecutive errors from 2 locations).

Cons:

• Unary-Only Limitation: Streaming RPCs (client, server, bidirectional) are not supported, limiting coverage of complex services.
• Not a Load Test Tool: Designed for health checks, not performance benchmarking. It simulates minimal load by design.
• Cost Considerations: Tests are billed per execution. High-frequency or redundant tests can increase costs unless consolidated.
• Alert Tuning Required: Misconfigured assertions or minor API changes can trigger false alerts unless tests are carefully maintained.
• Functional Depth Constraints: Only single-RPC tests are possible. Datadog synthetics do not support multi-step workflows or session tracking.

Best For:

DevOps, SRE, and platform engineering teams who need 24/7 visibility into gRPC service health. Especially useful for production SLAs/SLOs or smoke testing during deployment. For instance, synthetic tests could verify that a gRPC “CreateTransaction” RPC returns a valid success response post-deploy, ensuring real users do not face regressions.

‍

10. Grafana K6

Overview:

Grafana k6 is a popular open-source load testing tool that now supports gRPC APIs. It enables engineers to write JavaScript-based test scripts simulating virtual users sending requests to gRPC services. Known for being developer-friendly and high-performance, k6 allows stress testing of both unary and streaming gRPC calls using proto files or server reflection. This makes it a powerful solution for validating gRPC microservices at scale.

Features:

• Script-Based Test Definition: Tests are defined in JavaScript using the `k6/net/grpc` module. Developers load proto files and call gRPC methods directly in the script.
• Supports Unary and Streaming RPCs: Supports unary, client-streaming, server-streaming, and bidirectional streaming calls.
• Parameterization and Data Input: Enables data-driven tests with parameterized payloads sourced from files or generated at runtime.
• CI/CD Integration: Integrates into CI pipelines, with performance thresholds that trigger build pass/fail logic.
• Scalability and Visualization: Supports distributed execution through k6 Cloud or Kubernetes. Results integrate with Grafana dashboards for real-time performance monitoring.

Pros:

• Powerful and Flexible: Full control through scripting enables complex, realistic test scenarios including loops, retries, and conditional logic.
• High Performance Engine: Built in Go and optimized for concurrency, capable of generating high load from modest hardware.
• Developer-Friendly: JavaScript-based tests are versionable and familiar to developers. Active community and plenty of gRPC examples available.
• Comprehensive Metrics: Provides response times, iteration rates, latency percentiles, and error stats. Exports to InfluxDB and Grafana.
• Performance Gates: Define thresholds for latency or error rates to catch regressions in CI automatically.

Cons:

• Requires Coding Skills: Geared toward developers and engineers with JavaScript knowledge.
• No GUI or Test Suite Management: Test organization and management are code-driven with no visual editor.
• Proto/Reflection Setup: Requires proto files or server reflection access for proper request marshalling.
• Resource Overhead: High-concurrency tests can strain load generator machines, requiring resource planning.
• Streaming Complexity: Writing robust tests for bidirectional or long-lived streaming calls can be complex.

Best For:

DevOps and performance engineering teams that need to validate scalability and latency of gRPC services. Ideal for stress tests, load tests, soak tests, and performance regression tracking. Especially beneficial for organizations that already use k6 for REST API testing or rely on Infrastructure-as-Code and Continuous Performance Testing practices.

Common gRPC API Security Vulnerabilities 

gRPC brings efficiency and performance to modern microservices, but its binary nature and protocol-specific nuances can introduce unique security risks. Below are some of the most common vulnerabilities teams should be aware of when deploying gRPC-based APIs.

1. Authentication Flaws
   
   ‍Weak or Missing Authentication
   When authentication is poorly implemented or entirely absent, attackers may impersonate legitimate users. Common mistakes include using default or hardcoded credentials, failing to verify token signatures, or relying on insecure transport.
   
   How it Manifests in gRPC
   gRPC often relies on tokens (such as JWT) or certificates. If these are not validated properly, or if authentication data is transmitted over an insecure channel, attackers may successfully forge identities.
   
   Example
   A gRPC service that accepts any API key or token without verification can be accessed by anyone who discovers or constructs a key. This could result in unauthorized access to sensitive operations.

‍

2. Authorization Flaws
   
   ‍Broken Access Controls
   Even with authentication in place, services must ensure users can only access data and actions permitted to them. Without enforcement, attackers can tamper with request parameters and access resources they shouldn't.
   
   How it Manifests in gRPC
   gRPC methods often include resource IDs or user identifiers in request payloads. If the server does not verify the caller’s permissions for the resource in question, unauthorized access is possible. Role checks must be enforced on every RPC method.
   
   Example
   A non-admin user might call an administrative RPC method or pass another user's ID in a request to access privileged data or actions. If roles are not verified, the system may treat them as an authorized user.
   ‍

3. Insecure Transport
   
   ‍Unencrypted gRPC Traffic
   gRPC runs over HTTP/2 and supports operation without TLS. This can lead to plaintext transmission of sensitive information, exposing it to interception or tampering.
   
   How it Manifests in gRPC
   Using grpc.insecure_channel() in production leaves traffic unencrypted. Authentication headers, session tokens, and data payloads can be captured by network sniffers.
   
   ‍Example
   If a banking service exposes a gRPC API without TLS, credentials and financial transactions could be observed and modified in transit by a man-in-the-middle attacker.
   ‍

4. Injection Attacks
   
   What it is
   Injection occurs when the backend executes untrusted input as code or a command. While gRPC uses structured binary messages, injection risks still apply if server-side logic embeds inputs into database queries or command-line operations.
   
   How it Manifests in gRPC
   String fields in protobuf messages can carry malicious payloads. If developers directly interpolate these into queries without validation or escaping, the backend may execute unintended commands.
   
   Example
   An attacker submits a query string like "; DROP TABLE users; --" to a gRPC method that constructs raw SQL from user input. If not protected by parameterization, the database will execute the destructive command.

‍

5. Information Leakage
   
   ‍Exposing Sensitive Info
   Verbose error messages or improperly scoped response payloads can reveal internal workings or sensitive data. Developers may unintentionally expose more than needed during development and forget to sanitize outputs.
   
   How it Manifests in gRPC
   Returning stack traces, internal system details, or full objects that include unnecessary fields (such as password hashes) can leak critical data. Logs that capture and store payloads without masking sensitive values pose a risk as well.
   
   Example
   An error like SQL exception at OrderService.java line 45 gives insight into backend implementation. Returning full user objects, including fields such as SSN or password hashes, exposes unnecessary data.
   ‍

6. Misconfigured CORS
   
   ‍What it is
   Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) misconfigurations can allow malicious websites to make gRPC requests on behalf of an authenticated user. This is particularly risky when exposing gRPC APIs to browsers via gRPC-Web.
   
   How it Manifests in gRPC
   If a gRPC-Web server sets Access-Control-Allow-Origin:  and Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: true, it permits any website to make requests using a user’s cookies or session.
   
   ‍Example
   A user visits a malicious website while logged in. The attacker’s site makes gRPC calls to the vulnerable API using the user’s credentials, potentially performing sensitive operations or data exfiltration. Strict origin whitelisting and credential policies are necessary.
   ‍

7. Lack of Rate Limiting
   
   Unrestricted Request Flooding
   gRPC's efficiency can become a liability if endpoint rate limits are not in place. Attackers can flood services with requests, causing degradation or outages.
   
   How it Manifests in gRPC
   Without throttling, services are susceptible to brute-force login attempts, spam transactions, or resource exhaustion. This includes excessive calls to CPU-intensive endpoints.
   
   Example
   An attacker launches hundreds of concurrent calls to a report-generation RPC. If unprotected, the backend may become unresponsive, impacting legitimate users.
   ‍

8. Business Logic Flaws
   
   What it is
   These flaws are not low-level bugs but rather logical inconsistencies or unsafe assumptions in the service's behaviour. Attackers exploit workflows or abuse features in ways developers did not anticipate.
   
   How it Manifests in gRPC
   Assuming that RPC methods will be called in a specific sequence, or trusting that the client performed validation, can lead to misuse. Attackers can call internal methods directly or repeat actions intended to be executed only once.
   
   Example
   An RPC such as MarkOrderPaid may assume the caller has verified payment. If no server-side validation exists, an attacker could invoke the method directly to finalize orders without actually paying. Similarly, an RPC like ApplyDiscount could be called repeatedly to stack promotions.

Finding gRPC endpoints and securing them

gRPC offers performance advantages, but its binary nature and lack of REST-like visibility make endpoint discovery and protection more complex. 

To secure gRPC services effectively, organizations must first identify every exposed method and then apply layered security practices.

Enumerating gRPC Services and Methods

Understanding what services and methods exist is the first step in protecting them. Unlike REST APIs, gRPC does not provide built-in endpoint listing mechanisms, which means explicit effort is required to identify the attack surface.

1. Server Reflection: gRPC’s server reflection feature allows clients to request the list of available services and RPC methods directly from the server. Tools like grpcurl and grpcui use this capability to enumerate APIs dynamically. However, reflection is often disabled in production due to its potential to expose internal API structures. While helpful during development and testing, server reflection should be restricted or monitored carefully in sensitive environments.

2. Protobuf Definitions and Code Inspection: When available, .proto files provide a complete map of all gRPC services, messages, and methods. If source access is not available, client SDKs or binaries can often be reverse-engineered to extract service definitions. Because gRPC lacks mechanisms like HTTP OPTIONS for discovery, these offline resources are critical for mapping the API surface.

3. Traffic Interception: Capturing and analyzing network traffic reveals active RPC calls. In development environments or internal networks without TLS, tools like Wireshark can observe gRPC method names and payloads. In secured environments, this requires configured proxies or instrumented clients. Observing real client behavior is especially helpful in identifying undocumented or deprecated services.

4. Error-Based Enumeration: In the absence of reflection or documentation, testers can guess service and method names and analyze error responses. For example:

• UNIMPLEMENTED: unknown service Foo suggests the service does not exist.
• UNIMPLEMENTED: unknown method Bar for service FooService indicates the service exists but lacks the method.
• UNAUTHENTICATED: missing authentication token implies both the service and method exist but require authentication.

This technique, when used responsibly, can help identify valid endpoints by analyzing these subtle distinctions in server error responses.

Why Endpoint Discovery Matters

You cannot secure what you do not know. Hidden, undocumented, or “shadow” services often present the greatest risks, especially when exposed unintentionally. Security assumptions frequently break down when internal services are co-hosted with public APIs, creating a larger-than-expected attack surface. A complete and up-to-date inventory of gRPC services is essential for:

• Applying proper access controls
• Testing and monitoring coverage
• Preventing unauthorized exposure of internal functions

Securing gRPC Endpoints

After identifying endpoints, apply a layered security strategy focused on authentication, transport security, access control, and observability.

1. Strong Authentication and Authorization

Each gRPC method should enforce both authentication (who you are) and authorization (what you can do). Leverage:

• OAuth2 or OIDC tokens
• mTLS with client certificates
• API keys passed in metadata

Enforce least privilege by restricting methods based on user roles or service identity. Use RBAC or attribute-based access checks at the start of every method. Even internal service-to-service calls should authenticate and be scoped to their intended permissions.

‍

2. Transport Encryption and Network Segmentation

Always encrypt gRPC traffic in transit:

• Use TLS for all client and server connections
• Enable mTLS where possible for mutual authentication
• Avoid grpc.insecure_channel() in any production deployment

In zero-trust architectures, even internal traffic should be encrypted and authenticated. Deploy internal services on private networks and restrict external exposure using:

• IP allowlists
• API gateways with gRPC support
• Reverse proxies with gRPC-aware security policies

Gateways and proxies can enforce rate limits, block unwanted methods, and inspect metadata, offering additional protection at the edge.

‍

3. Service Hardening

Use secure defaults during development and deployment:

• Disable server reflection in production unless required and access is restricted
• Restrict exposure to only public-facing methods
• Keep gRPC and protobuf libraries updated to avoid known vulnerabilities
• Validate all inputs, even when using Protocol Buffers, to enforce business rules
• Limit message sizes and concurrency to prevent denial-of-service
• Sanitize response outputs to avoid leaking internal data.

Security interceptors or middleware should be used to apply common controls (e.g., auth validation, logging, rate limiting) consistently across all methods.

‍

4. Internal vs. External Endpoint Treatment

Differentiate how internal and external gRPC APIs are secured:

• External APIs should enforce strict authentication and reveal minimal internal detail
• Disable verbose errors and server reflection for public endpoints
• Require client certificates or verified tokens from third-party callers

Internal services, even within secure networks, should still enforce authentication. Lateral movement in a compromised environment often targets these lower-defended internal RPCs. Maintain zero-trust principles by authenticating and authorizing all gRPC calls regardless of origin.

‍

5. Logging and Observability

Comprehensive visibility is key for detecting misuse and supporting incident response:

• Log all gRPC requests, capturing metadata such as method name, caller identity, and response status
• Avoid logging sensitive data in plaintext
• Aggregate logs into centralized security platforms (e.g., SIEMs)
• Monitor for anomalies such as frequent errors or access from unexpected sources

Use distributed tracing and performance metrics to monitor usage patterns. For example, spikes in UNIMPLEMENTED errors may indicate an attacker attempting to enumerate methods. Combine logging with alerts to flag real-time issues and establish an audit trail.

gRPC Security Best Practices to follow

1. Transport Security (TLS/mTLS): Enforce TLS encryption for all gRPC communication to protect data in transit. Use strong TLS configurations with modern cipher suites. For service-to-service communication, enable mutual TLS (mTLS) or Google’s ALTS to authenticate both clients and servers. This prevents eavesdropping and man-in-the-middle attacks.

2. Strong Authentication and Authorization: Require every gRPC call to be authenticated using robust mechanisms like OAuth2 tokens or JWTs. Validate tokens on every request. Apply fine-grained authorization using Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) or Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC). Ensure that each RPC method includes checks for:

• Object-level permissions to prevent Broken Object-Level Authorization (BOLA)
• Function-level permissions to prevent Broken Function-Level Authorization (BFLA)

Restrict access to sensitive or administrative RPCs by enforcing role or scope-based permissions.

3. Input Validation and Sanitization: Treat all client input as untrusted. Even though Protocol Buffers enforce data types, validate each field for acceptable values, length, and format. Sanitize inputs to eliminate risky characters and patterns. For example, always use parameterized queries or ORM methods to prevent SQL injection via gRPC payloads. Schema validation and strict proto definitions are essential.

4. Error Handling: Use standardized gRPC status codes for client-facing error messages. Avoid leaking sensitive data through verbose error details. Internally log detailed errors, but ensure that responses sent to clients are sanitized. Enforce fail-safe defaults, such as denying access when an auth service is unreachable.

5. Logging and Monitoring: Enable detailed access logging for gRPC calls. Capture metadata such as timestamp, caller identity, invoked method, and status code. Avoid logging sensitive request payloads. Send logs to centralized systems for analysis. Monitor for:
   
   1. Unusual traffic patterns
   2. Unauthorized attempts
   3. High rates of failed calls

Implement alerting based on these signals to enable real-time detection and response.

6. Rate Limiting and Quotas: Protect gRPC APIs from abuse by enforcing rate limits and request quotas. Apply these controls using gRPC interceptors or API gateways. Define global and per-client thresholds. Also:
   
   1.  Enforce payload size limits.
   2. Set timeouts for requests.
   3. Throttle high-frequency or high-resource RPCs to prevent resource exhaustion

7. Observability and Infrastructure Hardening: Use tracing and metrics to observe gRPC behavior. Collect performance and reliability metrics using interceptors. Implement health checks and circuit breakers to maintain service health under stress.

8. Continuous Security Testing: Automate gRPC API security testing to keep pace with development. Security testing should not be quarterly or annual. It must be integrated into CI/CD pipelines and executed:

• With every code push or build
• Nightly as regression tests
• Post-deployment for live environments

This ensures vulnerabilities are caught early and do not accumulate as security debt.

9. Offensive Testing and Fuzzing: Don’t rely on passive scans. Actively simulate real-world attacks. Send crafted payloads to gRPC methods to test their handling of malicious input. Use dynamic testing tools or write scripts to:

• Attempt injection attacks (SQL, command, NoSQL)
• Fuzz inputs to identify crash vectors or validation gaps

This approach uncovers issues that static analysis or basic scans miss.

10. Multi-Call Workflow Testing: Test gRPC workflows end to end, not just individual RPCs. Many access control issues only appear across multiple calls. For example:

• Create a resource with one user
• Attempt to modify or delete it using another user

Verify that business logic is enforced throughout. Use test automation to simulate role changes, out-of-order calls, and replays.

11. Fully Automated Security Testing: Adopt tools that support automated discovery, payload generation, and testing for gRPC APIs. Look for solutions that:

• Ingest proto files or use server reflection
• Understand auth mechanisms (e.g., JWT, OAuth2, mTLS)
• Fuzz individual fields
• Chain multi-call workflows
• Integrate into CI/CD for no-touch testing

With automation, every new gRPC method is automatically covered, and developers receive feedback as part of their regular pipeline.

Challenges with using gRPC Security Testing and its solutions

gRPC APIs are central to modern microservices architectures, but bring unique security testing challenges. Unlike REST, gRPC uses binary Protocol Buffers over HTTP/2, making manual testing difficult. 

Below are key challenges and how enterprise automation addresses them.

1. Endpoint Discovery and Coverage

Why It’s Hard Manually:

• gRPC lacks browsable URLs or built-in endpoint listings.
• Server reflection may be disabled in production.
• Shadow or undocumented services are easy to overlook.

How Automation Helps:

• Automatically extracts service/method names using protobuf files or reflection.
• Builds a complete and up-to-date inventory of all gRPC endpoints.
• Ensures even internal, deprecated, or newly added RPCs are tested.

‍

2. Authentication Complexity

Why It’s Hard Manually:

• Requires crafting requests with valid tokens, API keys, or client certs.
• Multi-step login flows (e.g. OAuth2, mTLS) are difficult to automate.
• Auth setup is often undocumented or customized across services.

How Automation Helps:

• Handles OAuth2, JWTs, mTLS, and API key injection automatically.
• Reuses and refreshes tokens across sessions and test scenarios.
• Makes it easy to test endpoints that would otherwise be skipped due to auth hurdles.

‍

3. Authorization and Access Control

Why It’s Hard Manually:

• Requires testing each RPC with multiple user roles and resource IDs.
• Time-intensive to simulate BOLA, BFLA, or over-permissioned services.
• Missed authorization checks can lead to critical data exposure.

How Automation Helps:

• Systematically tests all methods using different roles and identities.
• Detects unauthorized access by varying object IDs and credentials.
• Validates that access control policies are enforced as intended.

‍

4. Multi-Step Logic and Workflow Validation

Why It’s Hard Manually:

• Logic bugs often appear only in specific sequences of calls.
• Manual tracking of state across calls is error-prone.
• Hard to simulate end-to-end workflows (e.g. shopping cart to checkout).

How Automation Helps:

• Chains calls together with full context/state management.
• Tests realistic user flows to uncover logic flaws.
• Automatically re-runs workflows to catch regressions during updates.

‍

5. Payload Generation and Fuzzing

Why It’s Hard Manually:

• Binary Protocol Buffers require special tooling to craft inputs.
• Fuzzing requires encoding edge cases for each message field.
• Manual test coverage is limited to a few simple inputs.

How Automation Helps:

• Generates valid and malicious payloads based on schema automatically.
• Fuzzes inputs at scale (large strings, unexpected types, overflows).
• Flags crashes, anomalies, or unexpected responses with full context.

‍

6. Test Maintenance and Continuous Security

Why It’s Hard Manually:

• APIs change frequently; tests become outdated quickly.
• Security reviews can lag behind releases.
• Manual regression testing is rarely sustainable.

How Automation Helps:

• Integrates with CI/CD to test on every code merge or deployment.
• Auto-syncs with updated protobuf definitions or service descriptors.
• Provides real-time dashboards and reports to track issues and fixes.

Implement complete gRPC API Security with Levo

Modern gRPC environments move quickly and rely on complex service communication patterns. Security teams need a testing approach that keeps pace with deployment while remaining grounded in how the system actually operates. Levo delivers complete gRPC API security by combining runtime intelligence with automated and precise security testing. This allows organizations to validate controls at scale, close real vulnerabilities, and improve both engineering velocity and overall security posture.

Levo begins by discovering all gRPC services and endpoints. It documents live behavior, maps sensitive data flows, and identifies access paths directly from runtime traffic. This provides an accurate, continually updated foundation for testing. Security teams no longer rely on manually written definitions or assumptions about how services behave. Testing reflects real conditions inside the environment.

With this visibility in place, Levo generates custom security tests tailored to each gRPC endpoint. It builds targeted payloads across all major testing frameworks including the OWASP API Top Ten, injection categories, CVE associated weaknesses, and business logic abuse scenarios. Testing adapts to the structure of each method call, the data it processes, and the relationships it maintains across services.

Access control validation is a major requirement for gRPC systems. Levo simulates real world role abuse through role mapping, parameter mutation, and token manipulation. It detects real user data from traffic and uses it to build accurate test payloads. This uncovers issues such as privilege escalation, IDOR, and BOLA in a way that mirrors how attackers attempt to move laterally across services.

Authentication complexity is also handled automatically. Levo detects and adapts to OAuth2, JWT, API keys, and mTLS. It manages token generation, injection, and renewal across environments so testing executes cleanly without manual configuration or developer intervention.

Teams can also test imported or internal APIs that are not instrumented. Levo parameterizes Swagger and OpenAPI definitions and applies the same depth of testing used for runtime discovered endpoints. This ensures comprehensive coverage across the entire gRPC ecosystem.

Levo introduces continuous security testing that supports rapid deployment cycles. Teams can schedule test runs, adjust intervals, edit test plans, and rerun specific endpoints directly from the user interface. Runtime-informed testing ensures each run focuses on what is truly exploitable, improving signal quality and reducing unnecessary rework.

Clear operational insight is provided through real time debug logs for every failed test. Security teams can identify configuration issues or environment level failures quickly and retest individual endpoints with a single click. There is no need to rerun a full suite unless required.

Levo also identifies only truly exploitable CORS misconfigurations by incorporating real browser behavior into its analysis. This reduces noise and helps organizations prioritize remediation accurately. Even in environments where multiple user accounts are unavailable, Levo extends authorization testing by simulating BOLA conditions through parameter profiles.

Levo’s vulnerability management module surfaces only runtime-validated API vulnerabilities, such as broken authorization (BOLA/BFLA), injection flaws, data exposure, misconfigured endpoints, and insecure object references. It bundles each issue with full context, the affected API, environment, exploit path, and replayable payload, enabling engineering teams to reproduce, triage, and fix real issues rather than chasing theoretical problems. Once a fix is deployed, Levo continuously retests the same paths to confirm resolution and automatically updates remediation status. Integrations with common tools like Jira, SIEM, or ticketing systems ensure findings flow directly into existing workflows, reducing friction and speeding up remediation from detection to closure.

Levo’s runtime API detection and protection modules give you real-time visibility into every API call, internal, external, partner, and even previously unknown shadow endpoints, and protects them with minimal overhead and maximum precision. At runtime Levo’s eBPF sensors observe each API request before encryption or proxying, providing deep visibility into actual behavior. Levo then applies behavioral baselines and contextual rules so that only genuine exploits, data-leaks or business-logic abuses trigger alerts. When a high-fidelity alert is raised, Levo’s protection module can block the malicious call in real time without impacting legitimate traffic, all while preserving performance and keeping data within your environment (no payloads are sent externally). 

Finally, Levo improves operational efficiency by nominating test users. It identifies the most effective test identities based on runtime access patterns while preserving privacy. This ensures that all testing incorporates accurate business context and reflects real service interactions.

Through this combination of runtime awareness, automated payload generation, continuous testing, and environment specific intelligence, Levo provides complete gRPC API security. It closes vulnerabilities at the source and gives security and engineering teams a reliable method to maintain confidence in every release.

Conclusion

gRPC APIs offer unmatched performance and efficiency, but testing them thoroughly and continuously has been a massive challenge especially at enterprise scale. Manual approaches can’t keep up with evolving endpoints, complex multi-step workflows, or binary protocol intricacies. Traditional scanners fall short in coverage and context. The result: missed vulnerabilities, delayed releases, audit pain, and revenue risk.

Levo changes that equation.

As the most automated and comprehensive API security testing platform, Levo brings together the depth of penetration testing, the coverage of API discovery, and the frequency of CI-driven validation without compromising speed or requiring additional headcount. By testing 100x more APIs than manual pen-tests at a fraction of the cost, Levo delivers continuous security at developer velocity.

Business benefits are immediate and lasting:

• Accelerate Secure Releases: Levo shifts security left without friction, integrating seamlessly into CI/CD so teams ship microservices, GenAI-generated code, and partner APIs without delays or risk.
• Protect API-Led Revenue: Every API is tested rigorously pre-production, including gRPC endpoints. This ensures secure integrations that power new revenue streams without audit failures or incident costs.
• Eliminate Manual Burden: With context-aware payloads, role-based access testing, and multi-call workflow validation, Levo delivers full lifecycle coverage without overloading your AppSec team.
• Turn Testing into Trust: Levo’s validated, real findings reduce alert fatigue and ensure remediation happens where it matters mapped directly to services and owning teams.
• Stay Always Audit-Ready: Compliance becomes continuous, not a quarterly scramble. Security gates run automatically on every build, backed by runtime and governance insights.

Whether you’re rolling out internal gRPC services or monetizing external APIs, Levo gives you complete, end-to-end API protection from inventory to runtime. Its runtime module monitors behavior in production, the governance module enforces policy and access control, and its visibility layer ensures no API or method escapes coverage.

In today’s environment of rapid development, growing attack surfaces, and rising compliance demands, Levo helps enterprises do the impossible: test deeply, test continuously, and stay secure without slowing down.

Security at scale is no longer a tradeoff. With Levo, it’s a business advantage.