Visibility and governance / Cloud
To review your cloud, we don't need to get into your cloud.
The reason almost nobody has their cloud reviewed isn't the cost, it's the access. Giving credentials to a third party means provisioning permissions, justifying them to security and then remembering to revoke them. None of that happens here. Your team runs a read-only script with its own credentials, reviews what came out and decides what to send. The analysis is done on that evidence.
What breaks when nobody reviews the cloud
- Continuity objectives live in a written plan and were never checked against what the platform actually allows. The commitment exists on paper, and the capacity to meet it hasn't been verified.
- There are workloads without redundancy that nobody identified as critical, because they were deployed for a test and stayed in production.
- There are backups with policies nobody has looked at again since they were created.
- Spend grows, and the decisions that explain it are spread across environments nobody reviews together.
- Everything is deployed differently from the last thing, because there's no reference to compare it against.
How it works
- You generate the evidence; we analyze it. Your team runs the collection script with its own credentials from your cloud provider's console. The result is a file with your environment's configuration, readable and reviewable before it's shared. That file is the only thing that leaves your environment.
- The script is audited before it runs. It's readable text with no dependencies, and it has a mode that prints the literal list of every command without running any of them. Your security team reviews it line by line. Every command is a query, and an internal guardrail stops the run at any command that isn't.
- Every pillar is reviewed, not just the one that prompted the call. With the same collection effort, reliability, security, cost, operational excellence and performance are all assessed. Asking about one thing and discarding the rest of the evidence wastes the exercise.
What gets reviewed
- Reliability. Where there's redundancy and where there isn't, what's backed up and under which policy, and whether what's configured is enough to meet the recovery objectives your business has already committed to.
- Security. How people get in, what separates production from everything else, what's switched on to detect and log, and whether that logging reaches every account and region where something is actually running.
- Cost. Where you're paying for capacity you don't use, and which architecture decisions sit behind the spend that's growing fastest.
- Operational excellence. How much of the platform is deployed from code and how much is still done by hand, and whether the instrumentation exists to find out something broke before a user reports it.
- Performance. Whether sizing matches the real load, and where the architecture is going to hurt as it grows.
How we work
Framing
We define which questions the report has to answer. An assessment without questions delivers a list of findings nobody knows how to prioritize.
Script review with your security team
The script is handed over with the literal list of commands and reviewed with whoever has to approve it, before anyone runs it.
Your team collects
The script runs with your people's credentials. If you'd rather not share real names, it can replace resource names, addresses and identifiers with pseudonyms, and the mapping stays with you.
Analysis and validation interviews
Each finding is checked with the responsible team before it's written down. What looks like a machine without redundancy may be a test environment, and stating it without asking is how a report loses credibility on its first page.
Results and prioritization
Findings are presented with severity and effort, each traceable to the evidence file it came from. What couldn't be assessed is declared a scope gap, never a finding. Nothing is stated that wasn't measured.
Why what happens next matters
An assessment is a snapshot of one version of your cloud, and the cloud changes every day. The snapshot starts to age the moment it's taken.
What turns a diagnostic into control is repeating it and comparing. The same method on the same kind of evidence gives you a baseline to measure whether the posture improved or degraded. Sustaining that measurement and closing what keeps appearing is an ongoing function, one our team can take on.
Questions
Does this confirm my recovery plan works?
It confirms the capacity is configured, which is a different question from whether it works. Verifying that a backup restores, or that a failover comes up, requires a target environment and an authorized window. Those are separate exercises, and the assessment is exactly what tells you which of them to do first.
Why not just use a scanning tool?
Because a tool tells you what's configured, not why. A good share of an automated review's findings fall apart as soon as you talk to the team that deployed them, and another share turns out to be more serious than the dashboard suggested. Without that conversation, the report is a nicely formatted list of false positives.
Does it work if I have more than one cloud, or cloud plus my own data center?
Yes. The method is the same and is applied per environment. What changes is each platform's collection script.
Review your cloud without opening it
A call to define which questions the assessment has to answer and to walk your security team through the script.