What we deliver
We review the security posture of the cloud environment, covering identity and access management, service configurations, monitoring and logging, networking and compliance. The assessment identifies risks such as accounts with excessive privileges, exposed services and insufficient event logging, and delivers a remediation plan with clear priorities and evidence for governance.
The problem it solves
Cloud environments that grew without a security review, permissive access policies, inconsistent logging and no visibility into the real security posture.
CTOs, heads of infrastructure and cloud architects who need visibility into the security posture of the environment.
After cloud migrations, before audits, when there is concern about the security posture or when the environment grew without a review.
Scope of work
Deliverables
How the work happens, in practice
Where the risks usually are
Accounts with excessive privileges and no multi-factor authentication, old access keys without rotation, publicly exposed storage, security groups with SSH or RDP open to the internet, disabled encryption, improperly shared snapshots and images, and event logging that is turned off or incomplete. These are configuration flaws, not code flaws, and they grow with the number of accounts and teams, because each new environment is a new chance to drift from the standard. A well-configured environment has centralized identity, least privilege, private networks by default and active logs in all regions and accounts.
References and verification
The CIS Foundations Benchmark of each provider (AWS, Azure and GCP) and the best practices from the provider's own architecture framework, such as the security pillar of AWS Well-Architected, the Azure Well-Architected Framework and the Google Cloud Architecture Framework, serve as a basis. The verification covers identities and permissions, service configurations, network, encryption and audit trails, with evidence for each finding. Native tools, such as AWS Security Hub, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Security Command Center, help surface deviations, but the results need contextual analysis to separate real risk from a justified exception.
Assessment and hardening
The assessment says what is wrong and why it matters; hardening applies the fixes. Separating the stages helps with prioritization: first what exposes data or allows improper access, such as public storage and credentials without MFA, then what improves visibility, such as logs and alerts, and finally governance, such as preventive policies and standardization through infrastructure as code. Fixes made manually in the console tend to be undone in the next deployment, so the ideal is to apply them in the same code that creates the environment and revalidate afterward, to confirm the drift has not returned.
What sets us apart
- Practical depth in public cloud
- A view that connects cloud security with operations
- Deliverables useful for both the technical team and auditors
Methodology
Discovery of accounts and services
Assessment of identities and access
Review of configurations and logging
Prioritization of findings
Report and knowledge transfer
Highlights
Frequently asked questions
The self-assessment shows, in about 7 minutes, how the organization believes it is doing. The technical assessment shows what the evidence demonstrates.
Start with the free cloud maturity self-assessmentReady to move forward?
Tell us about your context and challenges. We reply with a clear proposal.