Architecture and trust boundaries
System components, external services, data flows, privileged operations, and the points where trust changes.
SECURITY ENGINEERING
Find the security gaps that can block production.
Especially the ones AI features and regulated data create.
We review your application, cloud environment, access model, data flows, and delivery process — you leave with prioritized findings, clear evidence, and a remediation plan your engineering team can act on.
NDA-ready · Client-controlled environments · Senior engineering review
What we review
Application, cloud, access, data, AI, and delivery.
Identity and access
Authentication, authorization, roles, service accounts, privileged access, session handling, and least-privilege controls.
Application and APIs
Security-sensitive workflows, API exposure, input handling, error behavior, tenant separation, and abuse paths.
Cloud and infrastructure
Environment separation, network exposure, storage, logging, backups, secrets, deployment access, and cloud configuration.
Data, privacy, and AI usage
Sensitive-data flows, retention, third-party processing, model and tool access, prompt or training-data exposure, and client-data restrictions.
Delivery pipeline, dependencies and secrets
Repositories, CI/CD, credentials, dependency risk, build integrity, environment promotion, and secure development practices.
Is this you
When a security audit is the right call.
A customer security review is blocking a deal
Your team is working through questionnaires, architecture requests, and control evidence without a clear view of what needs to change.
You inherited a codebase that is heading toward production
The system works, but ownership, dependencies, credentials, and trust boundaries are not fully understood.
The product now handles more sensitive data
The original architecture was built for a smaller or less regulated use case. The risk has changed, but the controls have not.
Cloud access grew without a clear model
Permissions, service accounts, shared credentials, and deployment access accumulated as the product and team expanded.
AI changed the data exposure
New AI features, third-party models, coding tools, or data pipelines introduced questions the original security model never addressed.
A regulated workflow needs stronger auditability
The application must support customer or regulatory requirements around access, evidence, traceability, and data handling — including DORA-related operational resilience expectations for financial-sector counterparties.
What you receive
A prioritized engineering backlog, not a vulnerability dump.
A senior application or cloud engineer leads the audit. Formal penetration testing, certification work, and specialist assessments are scoped separately when required.
The audit package — illustrative contents
Executive risk summary
The issues that matter most to production, customers, sensitive data, and delivery.
Prioritized findings register
Evidence-based findings grouped by severity, affected system area, and recommended sequence.
Remediation backlog
Concrete engineering actions with suggested ownership and validation criteria.
Architecture and process recommendations
Changes to access, data handling, cloud setup, SDLC, or operational controls where the current design creates recurring risk.
Technical readout
A working session with your engineering and product stakeholders to review the findings, challenge assumptions, and agree on priorities.
Optional remediation scope
A defined follow-on plan for Insoftex to implement critical fixes, support your team, or verify completed remediation.
How we report
What a useful finding looks like.
Illustrative format — not a client finding. A useful finding tells your team what to change and how to verify it, not just what is wrong.
What we observed
The same cloud deployment credential is shared across staging and production — one CI/CD service account holds write access to both environments.
Where it appears in the system
The deployment stage of the CI/CD pipeline and the secrets stored on the shared build runner. A single credential is referenced by both the staging and production deploy jobs.
Why it matters in this context
Staging usually has broader access and looser controls. A compromise there becomes a direct path into production and customer data — the blast radius of any staging incident now includes production.
Supporting evidence
Pipeline configuration and secret references showing one service-account key used by both deploy jobs, and a matching IAM role bound to both environments.
Recommended engineering change
Issue separate, least-privilege deployment credentials per environment, scope each to its own project or account, rotate the shared key, and gate production deploys behind a distinct approval step.
Priority and sequencing
High. Sequence first: split and rotate the credentials before further pipeline changes, because it removes the largest blast radius for the least effort.
How to verify the fix
Confirm the staging credential can no longer authenticate against production (a denied deploy attempt), and that production deploys require the separate approved credential. Then re-run the access review.
How the audit works
From scope to a plan your team can act on.
Stage 01
Define the scope
We identify the systems, repositories, environments, data flows, and business constraints that matter to the review. Access requirements and security boundaries are agreed before work begins.
- Input
- Repositories, cloud environments, architecture diagrams, and a short scoping questionnaire.
- Output
- An agreed scope and access plan.
Stage 02
Review the system
Our engineers inspect the architecture, code, and configuration areas included in the scope. Automated tools may support the review, but they do not replace engineering analysis.
- Input
- Architecture, code, IAM and cloud configuration, CI/CD, and the data flows in scope.
- Output
- Evidence-backed observations across each area.
Stage 03
Prioritize the risk
Findings are assessed in the context of your product, production environment, data, users, and commercial requirements. The result is not simply a list of everything that could theoretically go wrong.
- Input
- The observations, weighed against your production environment, data, and users.
- Output
- Prioritized findings and a recommended remediation sequence.
Stage 04
Plan the next move
We walk through the findings with your team and define what should be fixed now, what can be scheduled, and what needs deeper specialist assessment.
- Input
- The prioritized findings and your team's delivery constraints.
- Output
- A remediation backlog and a technical readout with your team.
Scope & compliance
What this audit is — and what it supports.
What this audit is — and isn't
This audit is designed for software teams preparing to launch, scale, modernize, or respond to customer security requirements.
It is not a formal certification, legal opinion, or guarantee that no vulnerabilities remain.
Formal penetration testing, compliance attestations, and specialist assessments are scoped separately. When required, Insoftex can collaborate with qualified external security specialists.
Security and compliance requirements
We build software for clients operating under HIPAA, SOC 2, GDPR, PCI-DSS, and DORA-related requirements.
We support these requirements through secure architecture, access controls, auditability, documentation, and collaboration with certified external security specialists when needed.
We do not present Insoftex as the certifying authority. The goal is to help your software and engineering process support the requirements your company is responsible for meeting.
Relevant engineering work
Systems where access, sensitive data, auditability, and operational control were part of the engineering problem.
FinTech PHP Monolith to Microservices: Payment Platform Modernization
Replaced a fragile PHP monolith handling €40M annual payment volume with an event-driven microservices architecture — achieving PCI-DSS Level 1 compliance and unblocking a €12M Series C.
Read case study
Healthcare Personalized Health AI Platform
Developed an AI-powered platform delivering personalised care pathways from EHR, wearable, and genetic data — built to HIPAA-compliant architecture standards, with a 30% increase in patient adherence to preventive care plans.
Read case study
IoT & Industrial Tech Cloud-Agnostic IoT Framework for High-Throughput Edge Intelligence
Engineered a lightweight, cloud-agnostic IoT platform for MirrorIOT that supports high-throughput sensor data ingestion, multi-tenant device management, and secure OTA firmware updates — eliminating cloud vendor lock-in and enabling deployment across cloud and on-premises environments.
Read case study 70+ production systems delivered since 2019
95% client retention across multi-quarter engagements
40+ senior engineers across EU and US
7 years building for fintech, healthcare, and regulated industries
Questions
Common questions
Does this replace a penetration test?
No. The audit can identify areas that require deeper testing, but a formal penetration test should be explicitly included in the scope and may require a specialist partner.
Can you work inside our cloud and repositories?
Yes, subject to an agreed access plan. Work can be performed in client-controlled environments with restricted access and appropriate credential handling.
Do you certify that we are SOC 2, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, or DORA compliant?
No. Insoftex supports the software architecture, controls, evidence, and remediation work connected to those requirements. Formal certification or legal compliance determination remains with the appropriate auditors, legal advisers, and responsible organization.
Can Insoftex fix the findings?
Yes. Remediation can be scoped as a focused implementation engagement or incorporated into Build & Modernize or ongoing Scale & Evolve work.
Do you use AI tools during the audit?
Any use of AI-assisted engineering tools is agreed with the client beforehand. Sensitive client data is handled under the access and data restrictions defined for the engagement.
Is our codebase and data confidential during the audit?
Yes. We work under NDA by default, scope access to what the audit actually needs, and can operate inside your environment under your own access controls if that's a requirement.
How long does the audit take?
Typically two to three weeks depending on system size and number of areas in scope — confirmed after the scoping call.
Know what needs to change before security becomes the release blocker.
Bring us the application, architecture, codebase, cloud environment, or customer security questionnaire that is creating uncertainty. We will confirm the scope, required access, expected deliverables, and whether the work requires separate penetration testing or certification support.