We do three things well.

The problem

A scan gives you a list of maybes. A checklist gives you a list of shoulds. Neither answers the only question that matters when it happens for real: can someone actually get in, and what do they reach once they're there?

What we do

We attack your systems the way a real adversary would, then hand you a prioritised, plain-language account of what we got into and how.

• Penetration testing — external and internal, covering network, infrastructure, and web applications, scoped to what you actually run. Real exploitation where you authorise it, not a vulnerability-scanner printout.
• Exposure review from the attacker's seat — the "where would I actually get in" pass over cloud, identity, and network configuration, including what you have published to the internet without meaning to.
• AI system testing — where you are adopting AI, we test how those systems get attacked: prompt injection, adversarial inputs, agent and LLM misuse, and the paths data can leak out through.

Findings come back prioritised by real risk and written in plain language, with the fix path clear. Not a ninety-page PDF you will never read.

The difference is what happens next. We break it, we fix it, we prove it stayed fixed. Most shops hand over the report and leave. Because the hardening work in the next section is ours too, the attack, the remediation, and the re-test are one continuous loop rather than a hand-off.

Where it leads

You know what your exposure actually is, in the order it matters, and you have a route to closing it instead of a document about it.

The problem

Most small firms have no security engineer, but the work still lands somewhere. It goes to a developer, an office manager, or whoever keeps the laptops running. So "how should we configure this securely?" gets answered by guesswork, or it does not get answered at all.

What we do

This runs from "tell us how to configure this securely" to "come in as extra hands and do it".

• Secure configuration and architecture review — cloud, identity, network, and endpoint. Either how to stand something up so it is not a liability, or what is wrong with how it is set up now.
• The controls that carry the weight — access control and MFA, network segmentation, logging and monitoring, a backup strategy that survives ransomware, and incident-response planning that is real rather than a template.
• Assess, then actually harden — a posture assessment against sensible baselines such as NIST CSF and the CIS Controls, then the hands-on work to close what it finds, and a re-check to confirm it held. Assess-and-implement, not assess-and-invoice.
• Framework alignment — if you already work to a framework, we configure toward the controls it asks for and explain the work in plain terms.

We also help firms turn AI on without opening a hole. That means finding the tools staff are already using that nobody approved, choosing tools with a security lens, putting controls in place so regulated data cannot be pasted into a public model, and writing an acceptable-use line your team can follow. We can help you adopt AI safely because we research how these systems get attacked.

This is engineering and hardening, not helpdesk. We are not break-fix, and we are not here to manage all of your IT.

Two ways to buy it. A fixed-scope project with a defined start and end, or your security engineer on tap: the senior person who picks up when a customer security review lands, an incident hits, or a configuration decision needs a real answer.

Where it leads

Your systems end up configured the way someone who breaks into them for a living would configure them, and you have somebody senior to ask before the next decision rather than after it.

The problem

Sometimes you don't need a consultant's report, you need a senior pair of hands inside the work; someone who can lead a project, hold the security line, and raise the standard of a small team without the cost and commitment of a permanent hire.

What we do

We embed with your team for a defined period and bring senior software delivery, security ownership, and project discipline.

• Leading the delivery — running security-critical work from inside the team rather than advising on it from outside.
• Project discipline — backlog discipline, issue and pull-request governance, a shipping cadence, and tooling standards that hold up.
• Holding the security line — being the person who owns security on a team that has no dedicated security person.
• Raising the standard — mentoring as we go, so the practices stay in place after the engagement ends.

It suits teams that have the people and the work but lack the senior discipline to pull it together. We work this way with clients in Ireland and the US.

Where it leads

Your team ships better and safer, and keeps the practices after we are gone.