Know where you're exposed before anyone tests it. Architecture review, AI/agent design risk, and secure-by-design guidance — before it ships, not after.
Request this engagement ▸The systems, data, and goals in scope for review, agreed upfront.
Understanding the system, its data flows, and where trust boundaries actually sit.
Systematically mapping how each component could be abused, following STRIDE.
Rating each threat by likelihood and impact — not every finding carries the same weight.
Concrete guidance mapped to each finding — what to change, and why it matters.
Findings, risk ratings, and a prioritized roadmap — delivered clearly enough to act on.
Revisiting the model as the system changes, or before a major release ships.
…or any team that wants security built in at design time, not bolted on after a pentest finds it.
Reviews follow STRIDE threat-modeling methodology and are benchmarked against NIST SP 800-154 guidance for data-centric threat modeling.
A pentest attacks a system that already exists. Threat modeling reviews the design before or alongside build — cheaper to fix a flaw on paper than after it ships.
No. This works best early — architecture diagrams, design docs, or a working prototype are all we need to start.
Mostly documentation and conversation — architecture diagrams, data flow maps, and access to whoever owns the design decisions.
Yes — it often does. Threat modeling scopes where to look; the adversarial engagements confirm what actually breaks.
Tell us what you're building and what you're worried about. We'll come back with a scope, a timeline, and a quote.
Request engagement ▸