Our Approach — Fractional CISO Methodology

What the first two weeks look like

Days one and two: the intake confirms the trigger, decision owners, authorized scope, systems, constraints, and available evidence. A customer questionnaire or audit request is decomposed into questions that can be answered by a system owner, a policy owner, or a technical artifact. This prevents a broad request from becoming an unbounded investigation.

Days three through five: evidence and architecture are sampled. The work follows identities, data, vendors, administrative paths, changes, incidents, and recovery rather than reviewing documents in isolation. Short working sessions resolve factual gaps while the source and limits of each observation remain recorded.

Week two: findings are calibrated with the people who own the systems. Immediate risk reduction is separated from design work, policy decisions, and longer-term program improvements. The final readout explains what is known, what is uncertain, who owns the next action, and which evidence can be reused with an auditor or enterprise customer.

Shorter assessments compress these steps; a retainer extends them into a recurring operating rhythm. In either form, the method avoids presenting a polished document as proof that a control operates.

Prioritization and ownership

A severity label is not a plan. Vyer.Net weighs consequence, likelihood or exploitability, exposure, asset importance, effort, dependencies, and the value of evidence. A small access cleanup can outrank a large architectural project when it reduces meaningful exposure quickly. Conversely, a low-severity observation can remain urgent if it blocks an enterprise commitment.

Each action is assigned to the function that can actually complete it: engineering, IT, compliance, operations, a vendor owner, or leadership. The output records the desired state, a verification step, and any decision that only the client can make. Accepted risk is named rather than hidden, and a deferred item keeps its rationale so the next review does not restart from zero.

Evidence that travels

Evidence outputs are shaped for their next use. An evidence register ties a control or customer question to its source, owner, review period, and limitation. A threat model records the data flow, trust boundary, attack path, and mitigation requirement. An executive risk report explains movement, residual exposure, and the decision requested. A remediation roadmap preserves the original finding while giving it a sequence and an owner.

These artifacts can support an auditor or enterprise customer conversation, but they are not an attestation and do not claim that an assessor has accepted them. The client decides what may be shared and remains responsible for the accuracy and operation of its controls.

A public example of the shape of technical work is available in the EntraProxy platform API SDK proposal. It is a sample artifact, not a named-client testimonial or a claim about a specific engagement.

Handoffs and boundaries

Vyer.Net provides advisory analysis, architecture review, prioritization, governance support, and implementation guidance. It does not provide legal opinions, independent audit or certification decisions, unmanaged production changes, or a promise of 24/7 incident response. The client’s system owners retain authority over releases, access, risk acceptance, and operational controls.

Handoffs are explicit: the final session reviews open questions, owners, evidence locations, dependencies, and verification. When specialist work is needed, such as legal advice, an independent assessment, or a vendor-specific implementation, the work is identified rather than quietly implied to be included.