← Back to Services
Security & Infrastructure
Security and infrastructure assessment

Know Your Exposure.
Close the Gaps.

A comprehensive review of your security, infrastructure, and software quality — giving you a clear picture of your risk and a prioritized, actionable path to fixing it. No guesswork.

Contact Us →

What We Review

  • Application Security: OWASP Top 10 coverage, authentication and session management flaws, injection vulnerabilities, insecure data exposure, and broken access control patterns — reviewed in your actual codebase, not against a generic checklist that doesn't know how your application is built.
  • Infrastructure Security: network boundaries, IAM posture, secrets management, encryption at rest and in transit, and missing logging and audit trails — the layer most development teams treat as someone else's problem until it becomes everyone's problem.
  • Software Architecture: coupling, maintainability, test coverage, dependency health, and the blast radius of failures in your current codebase — because a system that's technically secure in isolation can still have an architectural structure that makes a single compromise catastrophic.
  • Cloud Configuration: misconfigured storage buckets, overpermissioned roles, publicly exposed resources, and gaps in monitoring and alerting — the category responsible for the majority of high-profile cloud breaches, and the one most teams haven't systematically reviewed since the infrastructure was first provisioned.
  • CI/CD & Deployment Pipeline: pipeline security, secrets committed to repositories, container hardening, and deployment risk across environments — the attack surface that grows with every new tool added to your build process and rarely gets the same scrutiny as the application itself.
  • Performance & Scalability: bottlenecks, resource limits, autoscaling readiness, and system resilience under real load conditions — because availability is a security property, and a system that falls over under traffic is as exploitable as one with a code vulnerability.

Common Triggers

  • "We're about to launch and want to be sure": a pre-launch security review catches authentication flaws, data exposure risks, and misconfigurations before they reach your first real users — and before they become the story of how your company's launch was remembered. A breach in the first month is survivable for some businesses and fatal for others. A review before launch costs a fraction of what recovery costs after.
  • "We had an incident and need to understand what happened": post-incident forensic review — trace the root cause, identify exactly what was accessed or exposed, close the specific gaps that allowed it, and produce documentation you can share with affected customers, regulators, and partners. The response to an incident matters almost as much as the incident itself, and "we investigated and here's what we found and fixed" is a very different message than "we're not sure what happened."
  • "An enterprise customer is asking for our security posture": a large customer or procurement team has sent a security questionnaire, asked for a penetration test report, or made SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, or HIPAA compliance a condition of the contract. Knowing where you stand before that conversation — rather than discovering gaps while trying to answer questions under commercial pressure — changes how the conversation goes entirely.
  • "Nobody really knows what we're running": teams inheriting infrastructure from an acquisition, a CTO departure, or years of undocumented decisions made by engineers who have since left. The system works — most of the time — but nobody can describe its security boundaries, explain why certain permissions exist, or say with confidence what data is stored where. That uncertainty is its own risk, and a systematic audit is the only way to replace it with facts.

How the Assessment Works

01

Scoping

Define assessment boundaries, access requirements, systems in scope, and the goals you want answered.

02

Review

Automated tooling combined with manual expert analysis across all defined areas — no black-box reports.

03

Report

Findings documented with severity classification, business context, and concrete remediation guidance.

04

Debrief

Walkthrough with your team — technical deep-dive and executive summary versions both available.

Tools & Methodology

  • Static analysis (SAST): Semgrep, SonarQube, CodeQL, and Bandit — automated scanning of your codebase for vulnerability patterns, insecure functions, and policy violations at scale.
  • Dependency & supply chain scanning: Snyk, OWASP Dependency-Check, and npm/pip audit — identifying vulnerable third-party packages and transitive dependencies before they become your incident.
  • Secret detection: GitLeaks and TruffleHog across your full commit history — not just the current branch. Exposed credentials from three years ago are still exposed credentials.
  • Infrastructure scanning: Checkov, tfsec, Trivy, and AWS Security Hub / Azure Defender — misconfiguration detection across your cloud accounts, Terraform, and container definitions.
  • Dynamic analysis (DAST): OWASP ZAP and targeted Burp Suite testing for running application endpoints — authentication flows, session handling, and input validation under real request conditions.
  • Manual expert review: automated tooling catches patterns; manual review catches logic. Threat modeling, attack surface mapping, and code-level analysis of your highest-risk areas — done by engineers, not scanners.

What You Receive

  • Risk & findings report: every finding documented with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low), business impact, and reproduction steps where applicable. Each finding explains what an attacker could actually do with it in your system — not just the abstract vulnerability class — so your team understands the real-world consequence, not just the scanner classification.
  • Executive summary: a clear, non-technical overview of your security posture for leadership and board-level stakeholders. Written to answer the questions executives and board members actually ask — how exposed are we, what are the most serious risks, what are we doing about them — without requiring a background in security to interpret it.
  • Prioritized remediation roadmap: quick wins you can ship this week, medium-term hardening, and strategic architectural improvements — sequenced by risk and effort. The sequencing logic is explicit: a fix that takes two hours and closes a critical authentication gap ranks above a five-week architectural change that addresses a theoretical edge case, even if the latter shows up higher in a raw CVSS score table.
  • Optional implementation support: we can stay on to execute the remediation roadmap alongside your team, not just hand you a document and leave. The same engineers who found the issues can fix them — which means no translation loss between the assessment and the remediation, and no guesswork for your team about what a finding actually requires in practice.

Who We Work With

  • Startups pre-launch or post-seed: don't ship vulnerabilities to your first customers. A focused assessment before launch is far cheaper than a breach after it — and the reputational cost of a security incident in the first months, when trust with customers is still being established, is disproportionately high relative to the effort of fixing things before anyone is affected.
  • Companies pursuing compliance certifications: SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA — understand your current gaps against the framework before your auditor does. Discovering a missing control during an active audit engagement means scrambling to remediate under time pressure and commercial stakes; discovering it during a pre-audit review means fixing it calmly and arriving at the audit with documented evidence of your posture.
  • Businesses recovering from a security incident: understand exactly what happened, what was exposed, and how to prevent a repeat — with evidence you can share with customers and partners. Post-incident, the two questions that matter most are "what did they access?" and "is it fixed?" — and both require a thorough forensic review, not an assumption that patching the entry point is the full answer.
  • Engineering teams with inherited or legacy systems: acquired codebases, CTO departures, or years of accumulated technical debt — get a clear-eyed picture of what you're actually running. Uncertainty about your own infrastructure is itself a risk: decisions about what to build, what to invest in, and what to expose to the internet all require knowing what you have, and most teams with inherited systems are making those decisions on incomplete information.

Why Kubrik for Security

  • Engineers, not checkbox auditors: we don't produce a list of CVE numbers and CVSS scores and call it an assessment. We read your code, understand your architecture, and explain exactly what each finding means in your specific system — what an attacker could do with it, how hard it would be to exploit, and precisely how to fix it. Your team leaves with understanding, not just a report to file.
  • Context over raw severity scores: a critical CVE in a library you don't call in a meaningful code path matters far less than a medium finding in your authentication flow or your password reset logic. Automated scanners can't make that distinction — they flag everything at face value. We prioritise by actual business impact and real-world exploitability in your environment, so your team works on what actually matters first.
  • Full-stack perspective across application, infrastructure, and pipeline: the vulnerabilities most assessments miss are the ones that only appear when you look across all three layers simultaneously — a secret committed in CI that grants production access, a misconfigured IAM role that makes an application-layer finding far more dangerous, a container running with elevated privileges that turns a low-severity bug into a full compromise path. We review the system, not just the parts.
  • Remediation included if you want it: most security assessments end at the document. We can stay on after the report to fix what we found alongside your team — writing the patches, updating the configurations, and closing the tickets rather than leaving your engineering team to interpret findings and implement fixes without support. The goal is a more secure system, not a comprehensive PDF.

Results You Can Expect

A clear, prioritised picture of your actual risk — not a raw list of scanner output. Reduced attack surface, with the most exploitable vulnerabilities addressed first rather than the most alarming on paper. Most teams discover significant issues they weren't aware of and fix them before they become incidents, customer breaches, or compliance failures. You leave with documentation your team can act on, evidence of due diligence you can share with enterprise customers and auditors, and — if you stay for remediation — a measurably more secure system rather than a report that sits in a folder.

Ready to get started?