Independent security audits for real-world risk
Clear, defensible analysis of your systems and codebase.
Findings you can act on. Judgement you can stand behind.
Not a compliance automation platform.
What you receive
Executive Risk Brief
A concise, leadership-ready brief explaining how a breach could realistically occur, what the impact would be, and which decisions matter most now. Designed for boards, investors, and senior stakeholders.
Technical Findings Dossier
Clear documentation of validated security findings, written for engineers. Each issue includes evidence, exploit reasoning, and precise remediation guidance.
Remediation Map
A prioritised view of what to fix now, what can wait, and why — balancing impact, likelihood, and effort. Built to support planning, not overwhelm teams.
Who this is for
- CTOs and founders preparing for due diligence, audits, or critical customer reviews
- Security and engineering leads who need credible prioritisation
- Teams approaching major launches or responding to security concerns
How this is different
Source-level depth
Analysis of how your system actually works: authentication, authorisation, data flow, and business logic — not just surface-level issues.
Defined scope
Time-boxed, snapshot-based engagements with clear boundaries and deliverables.
Works with real systems
Effective across modern architectures and long-lived, evolving codebases, including legacy components and inherited systems.
Judgement over volume
Fewer findings, each thoroughly validated and contextualised.
No security theatre
No padded reports. No inflated severity. No checkbox compliance.
How engagements work
Qualification call
Understand your context, constraints, and what you need to learn.
NDA and scoping
Define scope, access, assumptions, and deliverables.
Security review
Careful, manual analysis of the defined snapshot.
Delivery
Walk-through of findings and handover of written outputs.
Questions
That is a valid and valuable outcome. The report documents what was examined, how it was reviewed, and why no material risks were identified. Clean results are meaningful evidence for stakeholders.
Yes. Read-only access to the relevant repositories is required. Access is limited to the engagement window and revoked afterwards.
Access is strictly limited to what is necessary. Code is not reused, shared, or retained beyond the engagement. NDAs are standard.
No. Pentests probe running systems from the outside and are constrained by time, attack surface visibility, and the tester's ability to find and exploit issues during the window. Source code review examines systems directly, providing more thorough coverage and identifying vulnerabilities that external testing often misses. This approach is more likely to find issues because it can see everything, not just what is exposed at runtime.
Engagements typically begin within one to two weeks, depending on scope and availability.