Cybersecurity Audit
Comprehensive cybersecurity posture assessment focused on technical and organizational controls.
Most cybersecurity assessments focus on technical vulnerabilities and deliver a findings report without business context. This audit operates at a different level: it evaluates the security posture as a system — from governance (policies, roles, allocated budget) to technical controls (network segmentation, identity management, threat detection) and organizational culture (awareness, phishing response, incident reporting). The multi-framework approach allows triangulation: NIST CSF for governance structure, CIS Controls for prioritized technical controls, and ISO 27001 for normative traceability. What differentiates this assessment is that each finding is classified not only by technical severity but by business continuity impact and exploitation likelihood. With over 2,400 critical vulnerabilities identified across 180+ organizations, patterns are clear: the most dangerous gaps are rarely in technology — they are in the processes connecting people with systems.
Deliverables
Security posture assessment
Current cybersecurity state assessment against reference frameworks.
Vulnerability analysis
Identification and classification of vulnerabilities by criticality.
Remediation plan
Prioritized actions to close identified security gaps.
Intervention Flow
Reconnaissance
Attack surface mapping and exposed asset identification.
Technical assessment
Control testing, configuration review and vulnerability analysis.
Executive report
Classified findings, residual risk and prioritized remediation plan.
Technical Inquiries
The audit focuses on governance, organizational controls, and posture assessment — not on technical vulnerability exploitation. These are complementary but distinct disciplines: a pentest answers 'can they get in?'; the audit answers 'would the security management system detect, contain, and recover if they get in?'. If the organization requires penetration testing, it is coordinated with specialized technology partners under a scope defined during the scoping phase. The recommended approach is to conduct the governance audit first: a pentest without control context generates a vulnerability list but not a systemic improvement plan.
The audit delivers an assessment with findings classified by criticality and a prioritized remediation plan. For specific technical controls (SIEM, EDR, segmentation), execution is handled by the internal team or vendors chosen by the organization. We can help define technical scope and evidence criteria without participating in execution. The value of the independent assessment is that priorities are evidence-based rather than driven by a vendor's commercial agenda. Organizations that execute controls without prior assessment invest on average 35% more in measures that do not mitigate their actual risks.