Services Guide

A Veiliux penetration test is an adversary simulation rather than a compliance checkbox. We begin by mapping the estate the way an attacker would see it: internet-facing applications, forgotten staging hosts, exposed APIs, third-party integrations, cloud storage, remote access points and the identities that tie them together. AI-assisted reconnaissance compresses days of enumeration into hours and shortlists the paths most likely to succeed, but every candidate finding is confirmed by a certified tester before it reaches your report.

Testing itself is chained rather than isolated. A medium-severity information disclosure is only interesting when it unlocks an authentication bypass, which in turn exposes an administrative function that reaches the database. We document those chains explicitly, because the realistic risk of an environment is almost never the sum of its individual issues. Where safe to do so, exploitation is carried through to proof, with screenshots, request and response pairs, and reproduction steps that your engineers can replay in a lab.

Reporting is written for two audiences in one document. An executive section states, in plain language, what an attacker could achieve, what it would cost the business and which three actions reduce most of that risk. A technical section gives per-finding detail: affected assets, CVSS and exploitability rating, evidence, remediation guidance specific to your stack, and references. After you remediate, a retest is included: we re-run the relevant test cases and reissue the report with the closed items marked, which is usually the artefact your customers or auditors want to see.

A penetration test asks whether your systems have weaknesses. A red team assessment asks a harder question: if a capable adversary set out to hurt this business, would anyone notice in time? Veiliux red team engagements are objective-driven. We agree the crown jewels up front, whether that is customer data, payment flows, domain admin or a trade-secret repository, and then pursue them the way a real actor would, across technical, human and physical vectors.

Scenarios are threat-led rather than generic. We profile the groups that actually target your sector, emulate their tooling and techniques mapped to MITRE ATT&CK, and operate with the same patience they do: low-and-slow reconnaissance, living-off-the-land tradecraft, and deliberate attempts to stay under your alerting thresholds. Phishing, pretexting and physical intrusion are included where the rules of engagement allow, because real attackers do not respect scope boundaries.

The value of a red team is measured by what your defence learns. Every engagement closes with a purple team debrief where our operators replay each successful step alongside your SOC, confirm whether it was detected, and tune the detection logic until it fires reliably. You receive an attack narrative, a detection gap report and a prioritised hardening plan, plus a re-run of selected techniques to prove the new detections work.

Most organisations already receive more security data than they can read. The gap is not information but interpretation: which of the thousands of daily indicators actually matters to your estate, your sector and your exposure right now. Veiliux threat intelligence services close that gap by combining automated collection with analyst judgement, so every alert that reaches your team is relevant, contextualised and actionable.

Collection spans the open, deep and dark web: criminal forums, ransomware leak sites, Telegram channels, paste sites, code repositories and credential markets. We watch for your brand, domains, executive identities, leaked credentials, exposed secrets and mentions of your suppliers. When a new campaign targets your sector or a zero-day touches your stack, you hear it from us with a clear assessment of whether and how it applies to you.

Delivery is built for action rather than reading. Tactical outputs are machine-consumable IOC and TTP feeds that integrate directly with your SIEM, EDR and firewall tooling. Operational outputs map actor tradecraft to MITRE ATT&CK so your SOC can hunt proactively. Strategic outputs give leadership a quarterly view of the threat landscape, your exposure trend and the investments that would change it.

Automated scanners are good at pattern-matching known bug classes and poor at everything that makes an application yours: business logic, authorisation flows, race conditions, cryptographic misuse and the assumptions developers made at 2am. A Veiliux source code audit puts experienced reviewers inside your codebase to find exactly those flaws, before someone less friendly does.

The review is manual first and tool-assisted second. We trace the flows attackers care about, authentication and session management, authorisation decisions, payment and financial logic, file handling, deserialisation, cryptography and secret management, reading code line by line and building the abuse cases as we go. SAST, dependency and secret scanning widen coverage across the full repository, and every machine-generated finding is verified by hand so your developers never receive a false-positive dump.

Findings are delivered as a developer would want them: the exact file and line, a working proof of concept or exploitation narrative, the business impact, and a concrete remediation suggestion that fits your framework and conventions. We review in your own tooling where possible, comment directly on pull requests when invited, and re-audit the fixes so you can demonstrate closure to customers and auditors.

AI systems introduce a failure surface that traditional scanners are blind to. The model is not just code; it is code, weights, prompts, retrieval data, tool permissions and the humans who trust its output. Veiliux tests all of it. Adversarial prompt work covers direct and indirect injection, jailbreak chains, system-prompt extraction, unsafe tool invocation and agent loops that can be steered into destructive actions on your infrastructure.

Data handling receives equal attention. We trace what enters training sets, embeddings and retrieval stores, then test whether regulated or customer-segregated data can be recalled by the wrong tenant. Multi-tenant RAG deployments are a frequent source of silent leakage: retrieval filters that work in the happy path frequently fail under crafted queries, encoded payloads or language switching.

The engagement closes with guardrail validation and a supply-chain review. We measure whether output filtering, rate limits, refusal behaviour and human approval steps actually hold under sustained pressure, and we assess model provenance, third-party inference providers, plugin ecosystems and the blast radius of a compromised dependency. Findings map to the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications and to NIST's AI Risk Management Framework so they slot straight into an existing governance programme.

Smart contract defects are permanent in a way ordinary software bugs are not: once deployed, the flawed logic is immutable and the funds it guards are liquid. Veiliux reviews contracts before mainnet and after every material change, combining line-by-line manual review with symbolic execution and property-based fuzzing to find reentrancy, access-control gaps, arithmetic errors, unchecked external calls and oracle manipulation.

Economics are reviewed alongside code. Many exploited protocols contained no coding error at all, the incentives allowed an attacker to profit through legitimate transactions, often amplified by flash loans or governance capture. We model those scenarios explicitly, including price-feed dependency, slippage, liquidation logic and voting thresholds.

Scope extends past the contracts themselves to deployment scripts, upgrade proxies, admin key custody, multisig thresholds and off-chain components such as relayers and indexers. After remediation we run a verification pass and, if you need one for your community or exchange listing, produce a public-ready summary of the audit and its outcome.

Compliance projects stall when they are run as documentation exercises. Veiliux frames the work around evidence: for every control, we identify what an auditor will ask for, which system produces that artefact and who owns it. That turns an abstract framework into a finite list of engineering and process tasks with named owners and dates.

We support ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type I and II, PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR and regional regulations across the UK, US, UAE and Saudi Arabia. Where you pursue several at once, controls are mapped to a single internal baseline so one piece of evidence satisfies multiple frameworks instead of being rebuilt per audit.

Policies and procedures are written to describe how your teams already work, with the minimum change necessary to be compliant, policies that contradict daily practice fail on their first audit sample. We stay engaged through the audit itself, answering auditor queries, preparing sample sets and closing observations before they become non-conformities.

Forensic engagements preserve evidence first and answer questions second. Acquisition is performed under documented chain of custody across disks, memory, cloud tenants, endpoints, mobile devices and log platforms, with hashes recorded at every step so the material remains admissible if the matter escalates to litigation or regulatory action.

Analysis reconstructs a defensible timeline: how the actor obtained initial access, how long they were resident, what they touched, which credentials they used, what was staged for exfiltration and whether data actually left the estate. That last question is usually the one determining your notification obligations, and it deserves an evidence-backed answer rather than an assumption.

Beyond intrusions, the same discipline supports insider misuse, fraud, intellectual property theft and employment disputes. Findings are delivered in a written report suitable for regulators, insurers, boards and legal counsel, and our examiners can provide statements or expert testimony where required.

During a live incident the order of operations is fixed: contain, evict, recover, learn. Veiliux responders join within the agreed response window, establish a single source of truth for the timeline, and work alongside your team rather than displacing it. Early triage confirms scope, affected systems, the actor's likely objective and whether regulated data has been touched.

Containment balances speed against evidence. Isolating a host is trivial; isolating it without destroying volatile memory, tipping off the attacker or breaking a business-critical process requires judgement. We sequence credential rotation, token revocation, session invalidation and network segmentation so eviction happens once rather than repeatedly.

Recovery support covers clean rebuilds, restoration validation, integrity checks and heightened monitoring for re-entry attempts, which are common in the fortnight after eviction. The engagement finishes with a post-incident review: root cause, control failures, detection gaps and a prioritised hardening plan, plus assistance with regulator, insurer and customer communication where needed.

Default installations are built for compatibility, not for defence. Hardening converts them into baselines that resist common attack techniques while remaining operable. Veiliux works from CIS Benchmarks and vendor guidance, then adapts each control to your environment so nothing breaks in production.

Coverage spans Windows and Linux servers, endpoints, Active Directory and identity providers, cloud accounts across AWS, Azure and GCP, containers and Kubernetes, and network devices. Particular attention goes to the controls attackers care about: administrative tiering, credential caching, legacy protocols, logging fidelity, service accounts and lateral-movement paths.

Hardening only holds if drift is measured. We deliver baselines as code where possible, wire compliance checks into your existing pipelines and provide a scorecard so leadership can see the risk reduction over time rather than accepting a one-off improvement that quietly erodes.

Cyber resilience is the assumption that prevention will eventually fail and the business must keep operating anyway. Veiliux assesses that assumption against evidence: recovery time and recovery point objectives are not credible until they have been tested against a realistic destructive scenario.

We review backup architecture for immutability, isolation and credential separation, the properties ransomware operators specifically attack, then run restoration tests on representative systems to measure the true recovery time rather than the documented one. Dependencies are mapped so that restoring a system does not stall waiting for a service nobody listed.

Tabletop exercises put decision-makers under the same pressure, covering ransom decisions, regulatory notification, customer communication and the point at which you invoke third parties. The output is a resilience scorecard with prioritised gaps, so continuity investment goes where the recovery actually breaks.

Defence in depth fails when it becomes tool accumulation. Veiliux consulting starts by mapping controls to the attack paths that matter for your business, exposing where you have four overlapping products covering one stage and nothing covering another.

From that map we build a zero-trust roadmap: identity as the primary perimeter, device posture as a condition of access, segmentation that assumes breach, and telemetry sufficient to detect movement between zones. Each phase is scoped against budget and operational capacity, because a roadmap the team cannot deliver is a document, not a strategy.

We remain vendor-neutral. Where an existing product can be tuned to close a gap, that is the recommendation; where consolidation reduces both cost and complexity, we say so and quantify it. The deliverable is a phased plan with owners, dependencies, expected risk reduction and the metrics that will demonstrate it.

Harvest-now-decrypt-later is already an operational risk: encrypted traffic and archives captured today can be decrypted once cryptographically relevant quantum computers exist. Any data with a confidentiality lifetime measured in years, health records, financial contracts, state and defence material, intellectual property, is exposed to that timeline now.

The first deliverable is a cryptographic inventory. Most organisations cannot answer which algorithms, key sizes, certificates and libraries are in use across applications, appliances, embedded devices and third-party services. We build that inventory, flag deprecated primitives and rank each asset by data lifetime and migration difficulty.

Migration planning then targets the NIST post-quantum standards, ML-KEM for key establishment and ML-DSA or SLH-DSA for signatures, with hybrid deployments during transition. We also address crypto-agility itself, so the next algorithm change is a configuration exercise rather than another multi-year programme.

Permissioned ledgers solve trust between organisations, but they inherit every operational security concern of a distributed system plus a few of their own. Veiliux threat-models the network design first: membership and identity issuance, endorsement policies, consensus configuration, channel or subnet segregation and what a malicious participant could achieve.

Key management usually determines the security of the whole deployment. We design custody for signing keys, HSM integration, rotation and revocation, and recovery procedures that do not depend on a single administrator, then verify the design holds against realistic insider scenarios.

Deployment work covers node hardening, secure smart contract or chaincode review, API and gateway exposure, monitoring for ledger-level anomalies, and the operational runbooks the platform team needs to run it safely after handover.