Two focused AWS reviews. Clear guarantees. No vague consulting.

We agree the scope first and use read-only AWS access wherever possible. For remediation work, write access is limited to the agreed resources and changes.

No. Automated findings are useful, but the audit adds technical context, business tradeoffs, remediation steps, code where useful, and a prioritized roadmap.

Yes. Findings can be remediated with hands-on implementation, Terraform/CDK templates, operating procedures, or a combination of those.

Yes, when infrastructure as code is the right remediation path. The goal is to prevent the same issue from coming back later.

Yes. We can keep running recurring checks for restore readiness, alarms, IAM hygiene, exposed paths, retention, and cost waste.

Yes. Restore tests can be planned and documented for compliance and audit requirements, including evidence of owner, timing, result, and follow-up actions.

Yes. Startup audits document practical tradeoffs around cost, speed, and risk instead of blindly recommending enterprise-level architecture too early.

Yes. Enterprise and regulated reports can focus on governance, separation of duties, evidence, encryption, recovery proof, and organization-wide guardrails.

The report is based on business context, AWS maturity, constraints, compliance needs, and the real risks found in the account.

It depends on the number of accounts, workloads, and depth of remediation. The first step is a short call to define scope and access.

You get a remediation roadmap. From there, we can help fix the priority items and optionally keep a recurring check dashboard active.