For the infrastructure your application trusts by default
Cloud Security
A cloud account rarely gets breached through a clever exploit. More often it is an over-permissioned role, a storage bucket left public, or a flat network that lets one compromised workload reach everything else. This practice reviews exactly that surface, infrastructure and configuration, without touching the application code your teams already own. IAM, exposure and segmentation each get treated as a distinct question with its own evidence.
How a cloud environment gets reviewed for exposure
IAM, storage exposure and segmentation, reviewed as three separate questions.
90 secSample frame · video pending01Before choosing what to fix first
IAM tightening or network segmentation first?
Both matter, but budget and time rarely cover both at once. Four questions settle which one closes more real risk sooner.
How many roles carry broader access than they use?
A high count of over-permissioned roles makes IAM tightening the faster win, since each fix closes a concrete, provable gap.
Could one compromised workload reach unrelated systems?
A flat network where anything can reach anything makes segmentation the more valuable fix, regardless of how tidy IAM already is.
Has an account ever been compromised before?
A prior incident involving lateral movement points straight at segmentation. One involving credential misuse points at IAM instead.
What can your team maintain without breaking daily work?
IAM tightening is usually faster to roll back if something breaks. Segmentation changes carry more risk to unwind quickly.
| IAM tightening | Network segmentation | |
|---|---|---|
| Typical timeline | Weeks | Longer, phased rollout |
| Risk if reversed | Low, usually reversible | Higher, touches connectivity |
| Addresses | Who can access what | What a breach can reach next |
| Best fit | Sprawling roles and policies | Flat, single-segment networks |
02Agreed before access is granted
The ledger that keeps a cloud review honest
Cloud reviews drift when a recommendation quietly becomes an unapproved change to a live account. This sets the terms plainly: what you grant access to, what gets reviewed, what comes back as a finding, and which changes wait on your approval.
- Your side
You bring
- Read access to the current IAM configuration
- A list of teams and their expected access levels
- Any prior incident involving over-broad permissions
- Our side
We build
- A full inventory of roles, policies and their actual grants
- A comparison of granted access against least-privilege expectations
- A remediation plan sequenced to avoid breaking live workflows
- Your side
You receive
- A written IAM audit naming every over-permissioned role
- A prioritised tightening plan with a rollback path
- A recommendation for ongoing access review going forward
Never leaves you
- The identity provider and every account itself
- The decision on which permission gets revoked first
- Ownership of the environment throughout the change
Where the line sitsWe map the permissions; you approve every revocation. Tightening IAM without your sign-off risks breaking a workflow nobody documented.
03From account map to closed exposure
Four stages, each closing on evidence
A cloud environment that stays exposed usually skipped one of these stages. This system closes each one with something your team can verify directly.
Map the environment as it actually is
Accounts, roles, network paths and storage resources get inventoried before any comparison against a security baseline begins.
Every account, role and resource in scopeCompare against a security baseline
The mapped environment gets checked against least-privilege expectations and common misconfiguration patterns across storage and network.
Against least privilege and known exposure patternsRank findings by real exposure
Every finding gets ranked by what it actually exposes and how reachable it is, not by a generic severity label alone.
Ranked so the riskiest gap gets fixed firstSequence remediation without an outage
Fixes get sequenced to avoid breaking a workflow nobody documented, with a rollback path for anything that touches production.
A plan that respects live workloads
04What actually moves the number
Four drivers, priced from the account map
Cloud security work is priced from an initial environment map, because these four factors change scope by multiples of the base estimate.
Number of accounts and regions in scope
A single account reviews faster than a multi-account, multi-region estate spanning several business units.
Age and sprawl of existing IAM policy
A newly provisioned account has far fewer roles to reconcile than one that has accumulated permissions for years.
Whether segmentation needs designing or only auditing
Auditing existing segmentation is faster than designing a new zero-trust topology from a flat network.
Depth of remediation versus reporting only
A findings report costs less than a report plus hands-on remediation of every flagged misconfiguration.
05Evidence and proof
Exposure closed before it became an incident.
Cloud security proof is a misconfiguration found and closed before an attacker finds it first. Every record here waits for written client approval before production.
Explore case studiesAn over-permissioned account tightened without a single outage.
Orra Systems had accumulated IAM roles across three years of hires with no least-privilege review. A phased tightening plan closed the gaps without interrupting a single live workflow.
- Over-permissioned roles remediated
- 47
- Workflow interruptions during rollout
- None reported
A public storage exposure closed before it reached an incident.
Vela Ledger's cloud footprint had grown across multiple teams provisioning storage independently. A scan found one bucket holding customer records reachable from the open internet.
- Unintentional public exposures found
- 1
- Time from finding to closed exposure
- Under a day
We assumed our storage was locked down. It took an outside review to prove it wasn't.
Sample · pending client approval
06Read this first
When a cloud review is the wrong first move
Reviewing infrastructure when the actual defect lives in application code wastes the engagement's scope entirely. The exits are marked plainly below.
- Application Security
The issue lives in application code, not infrastructure
A vulnerable dependency or an insecure coding pattern is a lifecycle question, not a cloud configuration one.
- Penetration Testing
You need proof of exploitability, not a configuration review
If the goal is proving a real attacker could get in, an adversarial engagement answers that more directly.
- Hire Cloud Security Engineers
You need cloud security engineers, not a delivery layer
If your team already owns the cloud roadmap and just needs capacity, team extension fits better than a commissioned review.
| Shape | Best when | You direct | We carry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoped review | A defined account or environment | Which findings get remediated first | The audit and remediation plan |
| Phased programme | Segmentation across several accounts | Rollout pace and priorities | Design, sequencing and validation |
| Team extension | Your leads own the cloud roadmap | Standards and architecture | Named engineers and continuity |
07Straight answers
Asked before cloud access gets granted.
01Do you review AWS, Azure and GCP, or only one?
All three, along with the native posture tools each provides such as Security Hub or Security Center. The review method stays the same; only the tooling underneath it changes.
02Will this touch our application code at all?
No. This practice stays scoped to infrastructure and configuration. A code-level review runs as a separate application security engagement when one is needed.
03How disruptive is an IAM tightening pass?
Changes are sequenced to avoid breaking a live workflow, with a rollback path for anything touching production. Most tightening happens with no visible disruption at all.
04Do you design zero-trust architecture, or only audit existing segmentation?
Both, depending on where you start. A flat network gets a design; an already-segmented one gets audited for gaps in the existing boundaries.
05Can you review a multi-account, multi-region environment?
Yes, and scope is set explicitly against however many accounts and regions are in play. Estate size is one of the main drivers of engagement cost.
06What happens if you find an active exposure during the review?
It gets flagged immediately rather than held for the final report. An actively exploitable exposure does not wait for a scheduled deliverable.
07How long does a cloud security review take?
A single-account IAM review can close within a few weeks. A segmentation design across several accounts runs considerably longer.
08What does cloud security work cost?
Pricing follows account count, IAM sprawl and whether segmentation needs designing from scratch, set during an initial scoping call. Reporting-only work costs less than reporting paired with remediation.