Cloud security reviews that catch the misconfiguration before someone else does.

A cloud security review is an examination of how your cloud account is set up. Not your servers, not your application code, but the thousands of configuration choices that sit underneath them: who can access what, which ports face the internet, whether your storage is public, whether your data is encrypted, and whether anyone would notice if something went wrong. We read those settings the way an attacker would, then tell you where the gaps are.

The distinction matters because a modern breach rarely starts with clever exploit code. It starts with a storage bucket someone left open, an access key with far more permission than it needs, or a database exposed to the whole internet because a default was never changed. None of that shows up in a code review or a standard application test. It shows up in the configuration, which is exactly what this engagement inspects.

We run the review against the three major platforms — AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud — and measure what we find against the CIS Benchmarks and each provider's own security guidance. The result is not a raw scanner dump. It is a ranked, plain-language account of what is misconfigured, how badly it exposes you, and the specific change that closes the gap.

Every major cloud provider runs on a shared responsibility model, and misreading it is the single most common reason environments end up exposed. The idea is simple to state: the provider secures the cloud, and you secure what you put in the cloud. AWS, Azure, and Google keep the physical data centers, the hypervisors, and the core services patched and protected. Everything you configure on top of that — accounts, permissions, network rules, storage settings, encryption choices — is your job.

Where teams get burned is the assumption that "the cloud is secure by default." It is not, and it was never meant to be. When you open a new account, the provider gives you the tools to be secure, but it does not make the decisions for you. A storage bucket set to public is doing exactly what you told it to. An access key with administrator rights on every service is a configuration you chose, even if no one remembers choosing it.

The line between provider and customer also shifts depending on the service. Run a virtual machine and you own the operating system, the patching, and the network rules around it. Use a managed database and the provider handles more of the stack, but you still own access control and encryption settings. A cloud security review exists precisely to map your side of that line and confirm you have actually held up your end.

Different accounts, same short list of problems. After enough reviews, the pattern is hard to miss, and almost all of it is fixable in an afternoon once someone points at it.

• Public storage. A bucket or blob container opened to the internet "temporarily" for a demo, then forgotten. This is the classic cause of headline data leaks, and it is usually one setting away from being fixed.
• Over-permissive identity. Access keys, roles, and service accounts granted far more than they need. When one credential can touch everything, one leaked credential compromises everything. Least privilege is the fix, and almost nobody starts there.
• Missing encryption. Data at rest or in transit left unencrypted because the option was off by default or nobody turned it on. Encryption is cheap to enable and expensive to explain the absence of after an incident.
• No logging or monitoring. Audit logging disabled, so if something did go wrong, there would be no record of it. You cannot investigate what you never recorded, and auditors will ask.
• Flat, open networks. Security groups and firewall rules that expose management ports or databases directly to the internet, with no segmentation between what should be public and what should never be.

None of these require a sophisticated attacker. They require someone to notice, and that is the job.

You receive a written report that leads with an executive summary your leadership can read in five minutes, followed by the technical detail your engineers need. Every finding carries a clear description, the risk it creates, the CIS Benchmark or best-practice control it maps to, and the specific remediation step. Findings are ranked, so nobody wastes a week on a low-risk item while a public database sits open.

Because the review maps to recognized controls, the same report doubles as evidence. When you later pursue a SOC 2 examination or ISO 27001 certification, the identity, encryption, network, and logging controls we assessed feed straight into that program. You are not testing the same environment twice for two different reasons.

Timing depends on the size of your estate. A single, well-organized AWS account can often be reviewed in a week or two. Larger multi-account or multi-cloud environments take longer, mostly because there is simply more to read. We give you the timeline with the fixed quote, before any work begins.

Plenty of firms run a scanner across your account and email you the output. That is not what this is. We bring a licensed CPA firm's discipline to a technical review, which means the report is written to hold up in front of an auditor, an investor, or an enterprise customer's security team — not just to fill a checklist.

That perspective changes what you get. We do not just tell you a setting is wrong; we tell you why it matters to the promises you make your customers, and how the fix maps to the frameworks they will ask about. You get senior attention rather than a junior with a tool, fixed scope you can budget around, and findings deliberately structured so the work carries over into your SOC 2 or ISO program instead of being thrown away. One review, two payoffs: a safer environment and audit evidence you can reuse.