Security architecture review that reads the system as it actually runs.
A structured read of how identity, network, and data controls actually fit together — not how the policy says they should. We surface the gaps before an attacker or an auditor does.
- identity · network · data · third-party
- cloud · on-prem · hybrid
- NIST CSF 2.0 · NIST 800-207 zero trust · CIS controls
- diagram · gap list · remediation sequence
Security Architecture Review, in plain terms.
We map your environment end to end: identity providers, network segmentation, data stores, ingress and egress paths, third-party integrations, and the trust assumptions glued between them. Then we test those assumptions on paper and in the configs. The output is a diagram that matches reality, a list of architectural gaps ranked by exploitability, and a remediation sequence your team can execute.
Architecture reviews are different from pentests. A pentest tells you what's exploitable today. An architecture review tells you which design decisions will keep generating exploitable conditions until they're fixed. Both matter. We often pair them — review the design, then test it — so you're not patching symptoms.
We look at what's in front of us: cloud accounts, on-prem network, VPN and remote access posture, SaaS identity sprawl, secrets management, backup isolation, and the segmentation between production and everything else. If something's outside our depth, we say so. We won't fake expertise in a control plane we haven't operated.
Common triggers for this engagement.
- 01You're preparing for SOC 2, HIPAA, or a major customer security review and want gaps surfaced first
- 02You've grown through acquisition or fast hiring and the architecture has drifted from any single owner
- 03A pentest keeps surfacing the same class of finding and you need to fix the design, not the instance
- 04You're moving to cloud, hybrid, or zero-trust and want a sanity check before committing
Questions teams ask before signing.
How is this different from a penetration test?
A pentest is adversarial and time-boxed — what can we break today. An architecture review is structural — which design choices will keep producing breakable conditions. They complement each other. Many teams do the review first, fix the design, then pentest to verify.
Do you need access to our production environment?
Read-only access to cloud consoles, identity providers, and network configs is ideal. We can do a meaningful review from documentation and interviews alone, but the findings are sharper when we can see the running configuration.
What does the deliverable look like?
A current-state architecture diagram, a written findings document with each gap rated by exploitability and business impact, a target-state diagram, and a sequenced remediation plan. We walk it through with your engineering and leadership teams.
Frequently scoped alongside this work.
Cybersecurity Consulting
Architecture review, control-gap analysis, and incident readiness — paired with operators who understand the network the controls run on. We tell you which fixes are real and which are theater.
Penetration Testing
Hands-on adversarial testing of the systems your team relies on. We report what we found, how we got in, and what to fix first — in language an engineer can act on.
Compliance Readiness
Mapping your environment to the controls auditors actually check, and closing the gaps before the audit window opens. We've sat on both sides of that table.
Network Architecture and Engineering
Design, review, and hands-on implementation. The same engineers writing the design are the ones who pick up the phone when a route flaps.