Precision at
every layer.
A consistent, four-stage process that turns access to your system into verified findings and validated fixes. Every claim we make is backed by evidence.
- 01
Understand
Scope, architecture, and threats.
- Scope & objectives
- Architecture walkthrough
- Threat model
- 02
Analyze
Manual review, testing, and verification.
- Manual line-by-line review
- Dynamic testing
- PoC verification
- 03
Report
Vulnerabilities, severity, evidence, and recommendations.
- Severity & impact
- Evidence & PoC
- Actionable fixes
- 04
Strengthen
Remediation and follow-up validation.
- Remediation support
- Follow-up validation
- Final report
Understand
Every engagement begins by understanding what the system is meant to do. We agree on exact scope, walk through the architecture with the engineers who built it, and build a threat model that tells us where an attacker would focus.
- Commit hash, environments and assets in scope, fixed in writing
- Architecture and data-flow walkthrough with your team
- Trust boundaries, privileged roles and critical assets identified
- Threat model prioritizing where review time is spent
Analyze
The core of the work is manual. Tools help us cover ground, but the vulnerabilities that matter usually live in logic only a human reviewer will question. Every suspected issue is verified before it is reported.
- Manual review of all in-scope code and configuration
- Static analysis and fuzzing to extend coverage, triaged by hand
- Hands-on testing against a running environment where applicable
- Proof-of-concept for every material finding
Report
Findings are written for the engineers who will fix them: what is wrong, why it matters, how to reproduce it, and how to fix it. Severity reasoning is shown, never asserted, and nothing is inflated.
- Executive summary for decision-makers
- Each finding with severity rationale, location, impact and PoC
- Specific, implementable recommendations
- Walkthrough call to answer questions from your team
Strengthen
An assessment is only as good as the fixes that follow it. We stay available while you remediate, review the fixes themselves for correctness and regressions, and update the report to reflect the final state.
- Support while your team implements fixes
- Review of remediation changes
- Follow-up validation of each finding against the fix
- Final report reflecting resolved and acknowledged issues
Security is a discipline,
not an assumption.
Every stage produces something you can verify: an agreed scope, reproducible proof, a written rationale, a validated fix.
Severity is reasoning, not a label.
Each finding is rated on two independent axes, impact and likelihood, and the rationale is written into the report so your team can see, and challenge, how we got there.
| Severity | Typical impact | Typical likelihood |
|---|---|---|
| critical | Direct loss of funds or data, or full system compromise. | Exploitable by any unprivileged actor with no unusual preconditions. |
| high | Significant loss, privilege escalation, or broken core guarantees. | Exploitable with limited preconditions or specific but realistic conditions. |
| medium | Limited loss, degraded functionality, or a weakened security property. | Requires notable preconditions, privileged access, or user interaction. |
| low | Minor impact, or a defense-in-depth gap. | Unlikely or impractical to exploit on its own. |
| info | No direct security impact: code quality, clarity, or best practice. | Not applicable. |
Let's discuss your security needs.
Tell us what you're building. We'll respond with clear questions, an honest view of whether we're the right fit, and a scoped proposal if we are.