Architecture and implementation guidance for APIs and partner integrations, including interagency and contractor boundaries where scoped, with documented identity, data, and acceptance controls.
Fintech, brokerage, and SaaS teams, as well as agency or prime-contractor teams connecting interagency, vendor, or partner services.
1–3 weeks
$2,500
Published price is a commercial starting estimate, not a Schedule rate. Government work requires a separately negotiated SOW or task-order scope and price.
Government or federal contracting work is scoped and priced separately through a negotiated statement of work or task order; published prices are not Schedule rates.
This review is for a fintech, lender, brokerage, SaaS, or product team releasing a partner API, connecting a vendor, or modernizing a service that moves sensitive data. It is useful when a security questionnaire arrives late or integration responsibility is divided between teams.
The trigger may be a new enterprise contract, a third-party identity or billing connection, an acquisition, or a release that changes the trust boundary. The review helps teams make the boundary explicit before assumptions become incidents.
The work traces requests, identities, tokens, secrets, data transformations, callbacks, queues, retries, and failure responses across the integration. Authentication is considered separately from authorization so a valid credential does not automatically mean an acceptable action.
Review topics include tenant isolation, input handling, replay and abuse controls, rate limits, error disclosure, logging, credential rotation, webhook verification, dependency ownership, and vendor data retention. Recommendations are proportional to the workflow and its actual exposure.
Implementation guidance can cover API contracts, policy enforcement points, secret storage, authorization tests, and configuration review. The purpose is to give engineers controls they can implement and reviewers evidence they can understand.
This is not an authorization to attack a third party or a substitute for a full code audit. Testing boundaries, supplied artifacts, and access are agreed in advance; the service focuses on the selected integration.
For interagency, agency-vendor, or prime-subcontractor links, a SOW can identify each system owner, trust boundary, data exchange, credential custodian, allowed access role, and acceptance evidence. Connected systems are not tested without explicit authorization.
The engagement normally takes one to three weeks. Government and prime scopes identify integration owners, interagency data boundaries, approved access roles, permitted tests, release acceptance evidence, and handoff.
You receive a map of the integration and concrete control guidance that can be turned into implementation tasks and tests.
API risk is connected to the systems and delivery habits around it:
Security depends on the complete trust boundary: identity, authorization, data minimization, secret handling, input and error controls, logging, replay and abuse protections, and ownership of the connected system. No single authentication setting answers the whole question.
Code and configuration review can be included where they are relevant to the selected integration. The exact repositories, services, and testing boundary are agreed up front; this is not automatically a full application code audit.
Yes. Webhook identity, signature validation, replay handling, payload minimization, retry behavior, and failure logging are useful review points. Vendor responsibilities and the client’s receiving controls are kept distinct.
Yes, for named connections under a separately scoped SOW. System owners, trust boundaries, data flows, authorized roles and tests, acceptance evidence, and handoff are agreed before review.