Gap assessments
Where your controls sit against the framework you’re being measured on, stated plainly enough to hand to someone who isn’t an engineer.
Security Assessment & Advisory
Independent assessments and design reviews, ending in a prioritised remediation plan your own team executes.
The call
Your client’s security questionnaire just became your problem.
Three tabs, a Friday deadline, and a segmentation section nobody wants to answer from memory. Or the cyber insurer wants an outside review before renewal. Or the board asked what actually happens if the identity provider goes sideways, and the honest answer is “give us a week and we’ll tell you.”
None of that is a competence problem. It is a problem of depth, capacity and independence, and the answer needs a name on it that isn’t only yours.
What you get
Findings you can act on this week.
Prioritised remediation roadmaps
Findings ranked by risk and effort, with sequencing and an owner beside each line, so the first two weeks of work are obvious.
Architecture and design review
Segmentation, identity and access design, and trust boundaries reviewed against how the environment actually runs rather than how the diagram says it does.
Questionnaire and RFP response support
Third-party and vendor risk questionnaires, the security sections of a request for proposal (RFP), and the policy documentation that has to stand behind the answers.
How we work
An assessment with a start and an end.
-
Agreed before anyone logs in
We settle what is in scope, what the deliverable is, and the date you get it. No discovery phase that quietly becomes the engagement.
-
An assessment with an end date
Interviews, a readout, and a document. That is the whole shape of it. We would rather hand over the findings and go than keep billing after the useful part is finished.
-
Sized to the question
No two assessments are the same shape, so the engagement is built around what you actually need answered. What is in scope, who leads it and what you receive are settled in writing before we start.
-
Your people do the fixing
This is advisory work. The plan is written to be handed off, to your engineers or to the vendor you already trust. We stay reachable for questions, but we keep no access and hold nothing you need.
Why independent matters
Findings are ranked by what the risk warrants.
The roadmap is allowed to conclude that you already own the right tools and simply need to finish configuring them. Where a control is working, the readout says so as plainly as it names a gap.
The assessment is signed by the people who ran it and is never resold under someone else’s brand. It usually ends up in front of a client, an insurer, or a board, which is why our name is on it. An assessment with no author is hard to defend when somebody pushes back on a finding.
Where we hand off
When the finding is really a framework matter.
A fair number of security gaps turn out to be compliance questions in a technical costume: a control that works but has no written owner, an evidence trail nobody kept. That side of the work lives with our compliance discipline. To be plain about the limit of what we do, IZT TECH is not an auditor or a certifying body. We prepare you for the audit somebody else conducts, and we never claim you will pass it.
Compliance readiness arrow_forwardNetwork architecture arrow_forward
The rest of the practice
Five other disciplines next door.
share Network Architecture, segmentation, wireless arrow_forwarddns Infrastructure Data center, virtualization, recovery arrow_forwardcloud Cloud Migration strategy, architecture arrow_forwardsensors Connectivity Carrier selection, SD-WAN design arrow_forwardgavel Compliance Framework readiness, evidence arrow_forward
Need help with something?
Tell us the decision you’re trying to make. We’ll tell you whether it’s an engagement, a referral to one of our sister divisions, or something you don’t need us for.
We’re here for you, so you can focus on what matters.
- mail [email protected]
- call (833) 498-2444