Cloud risk lives in the paths between controls.
The dangerous cloud question is rarely “is this setting wrong?” It is “what can this identity, workload, path, or misconfiguration actually reach?” We assess AWS, Azure, and GCP as operating architectures, not configuration checklists.
A secure setting can still participate in an insecure path.
Identity → privilege
Federation, role assumptions, service identities, standing privilege, escalation paths, and administrative blast radius.
Internet → workload
Public endpoints, ingress controls, security groups, APIs, load balancers, exposed management surfaces.
Workload → data
Storage, databases, secrets, keys, service permissions, lateral access, and data concentration.
Pipeline → production
CI/CD identities, IaC, repositories, build systems, artifacts, secrets, and deployment authority.
We assess the places where engineering choices become security exposure.
IAM & privilege
Human and machine identities, federation, roles, service accounts, least privilege, administrative paths.
Network & public exposure
Segmentation, ingress, egress, private connectivity, management planes, internet-facing services.
Data & secrets
Storage, encryption, key management, secrets, databases, backups, sensitive-data concentration.
Workloads & platforms
VMs, containers, Kubernetes, serverless, managed services, images, runtime assumptions.
Deployment & IaC
Repositories, pipelines, infrastructure as code, approvals, artifact integrity, configuration drift.
Detection & recovery
Cloud-native logs, centralization, alerting, investigation, incident response, backup and recovery paths.
Prioritize the path that changes exposure, not the setting that creates the longest ticket list.
Break dangerous privilege paths first.
Reduce routes to high-value workloads, data, administrative planes, and deployment authority.
Fix architecture where architecture is the problem.
Some exposures cannot be solved by toggling a setting. They require boundary, trust, or deployment changes.
Use platform-native controls deliberately.
Prefer coherent guardrails and engineering patterns over one-off exceptions that teams cannot sustain.
Make detection follow the architecture.
Logging and response should cover the identities, paths, and services that matter most.
What buyers usually need clarified.
Which cloud platforms do you assess?
AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform. Most engagements focus on whichever platform is actually running production workloads, and multi-cloud environments get particular attention, since maintaining consistent identity, logging, and configuration practices across more than one provider is where a lot of avoidable exposure accumulates.
Is this a penetration test?
No. It is an architecture and control assessment. Targeted penetration testing may be recommended separately when validation is needed.
Is this a compliance gap assessment?
No. Compliance requirements can inform priorities, but the primary lens is technical exposure and engineering remediation.
How long does a cloud security assessment take?
Most engagements run several weeks, depending on the number of accounts, environments, and the depth of IAM and architecture review required.
Do you require production access or credentials?
Access is scoped to what is actually needed, typically read-only roles, exported configurations, or architecture artifacts, and is agreed before work begins.
Find the exposure path before it becomes an incident path.
Bring us the cloud growth, architecture concern, customer pressure, IAM complexity, or noisy tooling. We will scope around the paths that can materially affect the environment.
You do not need to diagnose the exact engagement before contacting us. Bring the pressure, milestone, or decision.
Talk Through the AssessmentExplore All Assessments