Specific solution · Cybersecurity + Assurance
Security assessments
Find the exposures that change a business decision.
EINO examines architecture, reachable assets, controls, and plausible attack paths, then validates the questions that matter under explicit authorization. Findings become owned actions, verified fixes, or recorded risk decisions—not an undifferentiated scan report.
Evidence framework
Define proof before production.
Baselines and targets are agreed for each engagement. These dimensions shape what the team evaluates; they are not promised historical results.
Relevant
Is the finding tied to real exposure?
Relate technical evidence to reachable paths, critical services, information, and plausible business consequence before assigning priority.
- Critical-service coverage
- Reachable attack paths
- Business consequence
- Evidence confidence
Controlled
Did validation answer the question safely?
Track what was authorized, tested, observed, stopped, and excluded so coverage and operating risk remain clear.
- Authorized coverage
- Validated paths
- Control response
- Untested exclusions
Owned
Will remediation move and stay closed?
Connect every material finding to an accountable decision, feasible treatment, verification state, and reviewable residual risk.
- Named owner
- Decision lead time
- Retest status
- Residual-risk review
Solution portfolio
Four connected views of security exposure.
Each view answers a different decision: where risk enters the design, what is exposed now, what controlled testing can prove, and how findings move to closure.
Security Architecture + Threat Modeling
Find design-level exposure before testing individual components.Map critical services, assets, data flows, identities, dependencies, trust boundaries, threats, and existing controls. The review identifies where architecture creates or contains plausible paths and where deeper evidence is needed.
Technical capability
- Critical-service + asset mapping
- Data-flow + trust-boundary analysis
- Identity + privilege path review
- Threat scenario development
- Control placement + dependency review
- Architecture risk decision record
Business application
- New platform and service design
- Cloud and data-center change
- Application + API ecosystems
- Third-party and supply-chain integration
- Critical infrastructure segmentation
- Merger and acquisition integration
Published results + market benchmarks
External research and case-study benchmarks. Results vary by use case.
of tracked zero-days affected enterprise technology
Google Threat Intelligence Group analysis of 2024 exploitationsecurity + network product zero-days
Of 75 exploited-in-the-wild zero-days tracked by GTIG in 2024Attack Surface + Vulnerability Assessment
Separate reachable exposure from a raw inventory of possible weakness.Discover externally and internally reachable assets, verify ownership, examine configuration and vulnerability evidence, and relate findings to active exploitation, asset importance, exposure, and compensating controls.
Technical capability
- External + internal asset discovery
- Attack-surface and service enumeration
- Configuration + hardening review
- Credentialed vulnerability assessment
- Exposure + exploitability validation
- Finding normalization + ownership mapping
Business application
- Internet-facing services
- Cloud accounts + platform configuration
- Enterprise endpoint and server estates
- Remote-access and edge infrastructure
- Third-party connected environments
- Pre-change and post-migration review
Published results + market benchmarks
External research and case-study benchmarks. Results vary by use case.
of breaches began with vulnerability exploitation
2026 DBIR dataset of 19,905 known initial-access eventsof critical known-exploited vulnerabilities fully remediated
Aggregated 2026 DBIR vulnerability data from more than 13,000 organizationsmedian time to full critical-vulnerability resolution
2026 DBIR analysis of vulnerabilities in the CISA KEV catalogcritical vulnerabilities to patch at the median
Year-over-year change in the 2026 DBIR datasetSecurity Validation + Penetration Testing
Test specific attack paths under explicit rules and safe stopping conditions.Use authorized manual and tool-assisted testing to answer defined questions about applications, APIs, infrastructure, identity, segmentation, and detection. A penetration test demonstrates what testers validated in scope; it does not prove that no other vulnerability exists.
Technical capability
- Rules of engagement + safety controls
- Application, API + infrastructure testing
- Identity and privilege-path testing
- Segmentation + control validation
- Detection and response observation
- Exploit evidence + reproducible retesting
Business application
- Public digital services
- Clinical and research platforms
- Payment and customer applications
- Privileged access pathways
- Cloud landing zones + workloads
- Critical service resilience exercises
Published results + market benchmarks
External research and case-study benchmarks. Results vary by use case.
validated findings supported domain compromise
CISA healthcare-sector risk and vulnerability assessmentof authorized adversary emulation
CISA red team assessment of a large critical-infrastructure organizationthroughout the red team assessment
CISA reported persistent access and movement across geographically separated sitesglobal median attacker dwell time
Mandiant investigations of targeted activity conducted during 2024Risk Prioritization + Remediation Roadmap
Turn findings into sequenced change, verified closure, or an explicit risk decision.Combine technical severity with reachability, exploitation evidence, business impact, recovery options, dependencies, and delivery effort. Each material item receives an owner, treatment path, target decision, retest evidence, and residual-risk authority.
Technical capability
- Business-context + threat-informed triage
- Root-cause + finding consolidation
- Remediation dependency mapping
- Compensating-control + exception design
- Retest + closure evidence
- Risk acceptance + review workflow
Business application
- Enterprise remediation backlogs
- Regulated system findings
- Product security improvement
- Platform hardening programs
- Risk committee decision support
- Transformation security roadmaps
Published results + market benchmarks
External research and case-study benchmarks. Results vary by use case.
findings across five high-impact systems
Independent assessment reviewed by the US Government Accountability Officefindings reported remediated
Department of Veterans Affairs progress reported by July 2025of high-risk findings reported remediated
27 of 29 high-risk findings across the five assessed systemstwo high-risk findings remained open
Against a 60-day VA remediation policy, illustrating the ownership gapView research sources (6)
These are external benchmarks, estimates, and published case-study results—not guaranteed EINO outcomes. Results depend on scope, system conditions, implementation, and operating context.
- 01Read source
Hello 0-Days, My Old Friend: A 2024 Zero-Day Exploitation Analysis
GTIG analyzed 75 detected and disclosed zero-days exploited in the wild during 2024, including 33 affecting enterprise technology and 20 affecting security and network products.
- 02Read source
2026 Data Breach Investigations Report — Executive Summary
The 19th DBIR analyzes more than 31,000 incidents and 22,000 confirmed breaches in 145 countries, with aggregated vulnerability-remediation data from more than 13,000 organizations.
- 03Read source
Enhancing Cyber Resilience: Insights from the CISA Healthcare and Public Health Sector Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
CISA reports a healthcare-sector assessment in which internal testing used multiple paths and five material findings to compromise the organization’s domain after external testing and phishing did not gain initial access.
- 04Read source
CISA Red Team Shares Key Findings to Improve Monitoring and Hardening of Networks
CISA documents a three-month assessment at a large critical-infrastructure organization where the team gained persistent access and moved across sites without being detected during the engagement.
- 05Read source
M-Trends 2025: Data, Insights, and Recommendations From the Frontlines
Mandiant reports metrics from more than 450,000 hours of consulting investigations into targeted attack activity conducted from January through December 2024.
- 06Read source
GAO-26-107980: Cybersecurity—Independent Assessment and VA Response Generally Met Requirements
GAO reviewed an independent assessment and subsequent remediation across five high-impact VA systems, including 442 findings, risk levels, reported closure progress, target timeframes, and overdue actions.
Operating contexts
The constraints shape the system.
Information sensitivity, decision authority, service expectations, and review obligations change what a responsible implementation requires.
Government + critical infrastructure
Mission continuity, legacy dependencies, operational technology, public accountability, classified or sensitive information, and narrow maintenance windows shape authorization and safe test depth.
- Mission + safety boundary
- Legacy + OT dependencies
- Recovery + public accountability
Healthcare + life sciences
Clinical availability, patient and research data, connected devices, validated workloads, and third-party services require carefully staged evidence collection and explicit stopping conditions.
- Clinical continuity
- Sensitive data + devices
- Validated change control
Financial services + consumer platforms
Transaction integrity, customer identity, high-volume APIs, fraud controls, release cadence, and external dependencies demand representative testing without uncontrolled production impact.
- Transactions + identity
- Application + API exposure
- Release + third-party risk
Enterprise architecture
Evidence moves from boundary to owned decision.
The assessment architecture connects authorized scope, asset and trust context, discovery, controlled validation, business-aware triage, remediation, retest, and explicit risk acceptance.
Scope + system context
Authorization, assets, owners, critical services, data, dependencies, trust boundaries, environments, exclusions, and safe stopping conditions define the assessment boundary.
Threat + exposure discovery
Architecture review, asset discovery, configuration evidence, vulnerability signals, code context, and threat intelligence identify questions worth deeper validation.
Controlled validation
Approved techniques test selected paths with representative conditions, evidence capture, monitoring, deconfliction, recovery readiness, and explicit limits.
Evidence + risk context
Reproducible evidence is joined to severity, reachability, asset importance, business consequence, existing controls, uncertainty, and likely treatment.
Remediate + verify
Owners sequence fixes or compensating controls through change, retest closure, record accepted residual risk, and return evidence to the risk and operating record.
Controls that cross the system
- Identity + least privilege
- Security + deconfliction
- Observability + evidence
- Change + ownership
- Recovery + risk acceptance
Assessment execution modes
- Production-safe review
- Test-environment validation
- External perspective
- Authorized adversary simulation
Selected around the decision need, authorization, system state, testing safety, and available evidence.
Assessment strategy
Choose the method for the decision—not by default.
Architecture, system state, safety, authorization, existing evidence, and the consequence of testing determine which assessment methods belong in scope and how deeply they should run.
Depth follows evidence
No single technique provides complete assurance. Automated discovery, human analysis, controlled exploitation, control review, and retesting answer different questions and carry different operating risks.
- 01
Understand
Architecture review
Use when the decision depends on trust boundaries, dependencies, control placement, resilience, or a proposed design—not on whether a specific exploit works.
- 02
Anticipate
Threat modeling
Use during design and material change, or when a critical data flow or business action needs plausible misuse paths, assumptions, and mitigations made explicit.
- 03
Compare
Configuration review
Use when secure state can be evaluated against an approved baseline and reliable configuration evidence is available without intrusive execution.
- 04
Discover
Vulnerability scanning
Use for repeatable coverage of known issues across an understood asset scope. Treat results as discovery evidence that still needs ownership, context, validation, and triage.
- 05
Inspect
Code, application + API testing
Use when business logic, data handling, authorization, implementation choices, or interface behavior create questions that host and network evidence cannot answer.
- 06
Validate
Penetration testing
Use when authorization and system safety permit controlled exploitation of defined paths to understand real impact. Findings describe tested scope, not the absence of other vulnerabilities.
- 07
Exercise
Adversary simulation
Use when leaders need evidence about connected prevention, detection, investigation, and response against an agreed threat scenario and the environment can support careful deconfliction.
- 08
Assure
Control assessment
Use when the decision concerns whether a safeguard is designed appropriately, implemented, operating, evidenced, and owned—not merely whether a requirement is documented.
Delivery path
Validate exposure without losing control of the environment.
Five stages make authorization, dependencies, safe testing, evidence quality, remediation ownership, retesting, and residual risk visible from the start.
- 01AuthorizeAuthorization + rules of engagement
What may be tested, by whom, and under which rules?
Agree decision needs, written authorization, environments, test identities, data handling, communication, deconfliction, stopping conditions, exclusions, and recovery authority.
- 02MapScope + dependency map
Which assets, boundaries, and dependencies matter?
Confirm critical services, owners, assets, data flows, trust boundaries, external exposure, system state, existing evidence, planned change, and operating constraints.
- 03ValidateControlled validation evidence
Which methods can answer the decision safely?
Run the approved mix of review, discovery, analysis, and testing with monitoring, evidence capture, impact limits, checkpoints, and safe recovery available.
- 04TriageContextual findings + priorities
Which findings materially change exposure?
Confirm reproducibility, remove duplicates, state coverage and uncertainty, connect findings to plausible paths and business consequence, and agree accountable priority.
- 05CloseRoadmap + retest + ownership
Who fixes, verifies, accepts, and keeps watch?
Sequence remediation through change control, verify fixes or compensating controls, record residual-risk acceptance, establish review dates, and transfer ongoing ownership.
A precise place to begin
Security Exposure + Architecture Assessment
The assessment establishes what matters, where meaningful exposure exists, which findings require action, and how the first bounded improvement should move through change and verification.
Assessment outputs
- Authorized scope + rules of engagement
- Asset, dependency + trust-boundary map
- Threat + exposure findings
- Contextual priorities + accountable owners
- Target control architecture + evidence plan
- Remediation, retest + risk-acceptance path
- First delivery recommendation