An in-depth review of your cloud infrastructure, network topology, and application architecture to identify systemic risks and structural vulnerabilities.
Companies scaling rapidly or migrating to modern cloud-native architectures that need validation of their security posture.
2–3 weeks
$4,500
Final scope depends on system count, complexity, compliance target, and access readiness. Pricing is presented as a starting estimate, not a guaranteed quote.
This assessment is for teams changing cloud architecture, acquiring a system, or preparing a major enterprise launch where a security assumption could become an expensive dependency. It is especially useful when diagrams are outdated or several teams own parts of the trust boundary.
A customer security review, a material vulnerability, an acquisition, or a regulator question can all justify a fresh architectural view. The engagement gives technical leaders a neutral way to test design choices before they become production constraints.
The review follows data and control paths through the selected environment: identities, ingress, workloads, storage, queues, administration, observability, vendors, and recovery. We compare intended architecture with the configuration and operational evidence that is available.
Attention goes to systemic issues such as broad trust zones, implicit network access, weak administrative paths, unmanaged secrets, missing tenant isolation, insufficient recovery boundaries, and security controls that exist only in documentation. Findings are framed around the business workflow they could interrupt.
Recommendations distinguish a design correction from a configuration fix and from a process owner. Each item includes a practical verification step, so engineers can tell when a hardening action is complete and leaders can see which risks remain accepted.
The assessment is not a penetration test and does not silently change production. It is a decision-quality review that can guide implementation, a later vulnerability assessment, or a more focused threat model.
A two-to-three-week review usually combines an architecture intake, diagram and configuration sampling, interviews with owners, risk calibration, and a readout. The exact boundary, environments, and read-only access are agreed before work begins.
The outputs are designed to be discussed by architects and executives without losing the technical detail needed to act.
Architecture decisions are strongest when they connect to the controls around them. Continue with:
No. It is a human-led architecture review supported by configuration and evidence sampling. A vulnerability scan may be a useful follow-on, but this engagement focuses on trust boundaries, design assumptions, ownership, and systemic exposure.
Yes. A migration is a useful trigger because identity, network segmentation, logging, recovery, and vendor dependencies can be checked before the new environment becomes difficult to change.
Not always. The scope can use read-only configuration views, diagrams, design records, and owner interviews. If production evidence is necessary, the access method and boundary are agreed in advance.
The report separates architectural decisions from implementation tasks and gives each meaningful issue a priority and verification path. Teams often continue with a threat model, remediation roadmap, or recurring architecture advisory.