Recommendations that feel vague, impractical, or disconnected from reality
What Leaders See After a Security Test
From an executive viewpoint, most security testing — whether general security, AWS IAM, or full cloud pentest — tells the same story:
A long list of critical issues
No clear sense of what actually matters most
Little explanation of business impact
So leadership is left asking:
What should we fix first?
What will actually reduce risk?
Why do the same findings keep returning every year?
What Engineering Teams Experience
Engineering teams see penetration testing very differently.
From their perspective:
Findings feel generic and non-specific to the particular environment
Teams are blamed for configurations they didn’t originally design
Solutions focus on surface-level fixes, not root causes
The testing process ignores how the cloud environment actually evolved
Whether it’s AWS pentesting, GCP pentesting, or another cloud penetration test, the results often fail to reflect real-world architecture and constraints.
Why This Keeps Happening
Most penetration testing engagements are good at identifying what is broken. They’re far less effective at explaining why the same problems keep coming back.
When you dig deeper, many findings from cloud penetration tests trace back to the same IAM failures:
Excessive permissions granted over time
Weak trust boundaries between systems
Poorly enforced separation of duties
Chaotic user and service account access models
A cloud IAM penetration test may reveal dozens of issues. But if teams try to fix them one by one — without redesigning IAM at the foundation — the findings simply return in the next test.
That’s how organizations get stuck in a loop:
Run penetration testing
Patch the findings
Repeat next quarter
See the same results again
What This Costs the Business
This cycle is more than frustrating — it’s costly.
Endless remediation work with little lasting improvement
Increased pressure on leadership to explain recurring failures
Greater audit stress and uncertainty
Security testing starts to feel like bubble wrap instead of risk reduction
Eventually, leadership begins questioning the value of pentesting altogether — which defeats its entire purpose.
Our Approach
Fix the Root Cause
We treat penetration test results as a blueprint, not a checklist.
Instead of closing tickets and moving on, we analyze results from cloud penetration tests to uncover the underlying IAM design flaws driving the findings.
How We Do It
Group related findings to expose systemic access control failures
Redesign permissions instead of toggling individual settings
Reduce lateral movement paths across cloud environments
Build IAM controls that are secure by default — not patched after the fact
This approach works across AWS, GCP, and other cloud platforms.
The Result
Fewer findings in future penetration tests
Lower risk scores year over year
Measurable, lasting improvements in cloud security
Controls that hold up under real-world pressure
At that point, penetration testing becomes what it should be: proof that your security posture is improving — not another report full of the same problems.
