RISK ASSESSMENT
Turn a broad security posture into a clear set of priorities.
An assessment across systems, vendors, people, and controls that ends in one ranked list: where risk actually concentrates, and what to fix first.
Assessment scope
What we assess
A long findings list is not a plan. This engagement ends with a sequence your leadership can defend to a board, a regulator, or an insurer.
-
01 What actually matters We start from business impact and work back to the systems that concentrate it, rather than assessing everything evenly. -
02 What is holding We test whether prevention, detection, response, and recovery work in practice, not only on paper. -
03 Who owns the decision We establish where security decisions get made, who is accountable, and what evidence exists when someone asks. -
04 What you can realistically fix We size remediation against the team and the time you actually have, so the sequence survives contact with the roadmap.
Timing
Best used when you need to know what to fix first.
Leadership needs clarity
A board-ready risk view is required.
External scrutiny
A regulator, auditor, insurer, investor, or customer needs confidence.
Priorities are unclear
The program has many findings but no clear sequence.
The profile changed
A new product or program changes the organization’s exposure.
Process
From fragmented evidence to a prioritized risk picture.
- 01
Set the decision context
Define the leadership, assurance, investment, or remediation decision the assessment must support.
- 02
Build the evidence base
Review architecture, controls, incidents, findings, ownership, dependencies, and remediation capacity.
- 03
Test material exposure
Challenge likelihood, impact, concentration, control strength, and the paths that could create disproportionate loss.
- 04
Prioritize and brief
Sequence the decisions and remediation that matter, with clear ownership and an executive readout.
Outputs / What you receive
One ranked list your leadership can act on.
Risk concentration map
Where material exposure accumulates across the organization.
Prioritized decisions
Findings, ownership, and a practical remediation roadmap.
Executive readout
A concise view of material risk and sequencing.
Typical engagement team
Who typically leads this work
The exact team depends on the scope. Every engagement has a principal who owns it from scoping through delivery, joined by the specialists the system calls for, and whoever is assigned is named in your proposal.
Piotr Cielas
Principal Advisor
Head of Security at Agora, responsible for security, data protection, and corporate IT risk. Earlier at EY, led assessments across financial services, healthcare, and government.
Currently
Head of Security, Agora
$45B+ in volume
Paul Vijender
Specialist Advisor
Head of Security at Gauntlet, with depth across product security, IAM, cloud, DevSecOps, and blockchain. Previously held security roles at Tensor, EY, Broadcom, and ADP.
Currently
Head of Security, Gauntlet
$1.6B+ TVL
Timur Güvenkaya
Founder & Partner
Led a security engineering practice for Rust and non-EVM systems across Substrate and NEAR. Earlier, built vulnerability-detection engines at Invicti used by Fortune 50 and public-sector organizations.
FAQ
Questions before scoping
How is this different from a penetration test?
A penetration test proves specific attack paths in a specific system. This looks across systems, vendors, people, and controls to say where risk concentrates and in what order to address it. A test produces findings; this produces a sequence.
Do you need to scan or test our systems?
Not usually. The assessment runs on architecture, controls, evidence, and interviews with the people who operate the systems. Where a claim cannot be substantiated any other way, we say so rather than assume it holds.
We already have a list of findings. Why do this?
Because a list is not a priority order. Most teams we meet know a great deal about what is wrong and much less about what to do first. This engagement is mostly about sequencing, ownership, and what the organization can actually absorb.
Who is the output written for?
Leadership, boards, regulators, auditors, insurers, and institutional customers. It is written to be read by someone who is not an engineer, with the technical detail kept underneath rather than removed.
What do we walk away with?
A map of where material risk concentrates, a prioritized set of decisions with owners attached, and an executive readout that states the risk and the sequence without needing a technical reader.
Related services
Secure Architecture & Process DesignDesign or challenge critical systems, workflows, integrations, and operating controls before implementation or major change.Penetration TestingTest the attack paths that connect web, mobile, APIs, cloud, identity, and infrastructure.Digital Asset Program AdvisoryMake security, custody, vendor, and operating-model decisions across a broader digital asset program.
Next step
Make the next security decision clearer.
Share the organization, systems, decision, and audience for the assessment. We will define a bounded posture review.
Discuss your scope