Compliance

You have requirements your cloud environment needs to meet.
We help you check, evidence and implement them.

Bring us the relevant requirements. We translate them into things that can be verified in the environment, gather evidence where possible, and address technical gaps within our area of control.

Regulatory requirements · industry standards · corporate policies · audit requirements · other defined technical requirements

≡RequirementWhat must be true?

→

☷ControlsWhat we check

→

✓EvidenceWhat proves it

You might be here because…

You know what you need to comply with.Now you need to know whether the environment does.

◎

“The auditor wants evidence.”

We need to demonstrate how the relevant infrastructure is configured.

◇

“Our corporate standard requires this configuration.”

We need to check whether the environment meets it consistently.

▤

“This industry standard contains technical requirements.”

We need to translate those requirements into checks against the actual environment.

△

“We already know there are gaps.”

We need someone who can implement the infrastructure changes required to close them.

“This requirement is not clear enough to implement.”

We need to determine what concrete technical condition or evidence is actually being requested.

The core journey

From requirement to evidence.

For each relevant technical requirement, we determine what must be true, verify the current state and gather evidence. If there is a gap, the next question is whether we can remediate it.

Interpret the requirement technically
Check the current state against it
Gather evidence that answers it
Remediate gaps within our control
Document what is outside our control

Requirement

↓

Technical mappingWhat must be true?

↓

Verify current state

Meets↓

Evidence

Gap↓

Can we remediate?

Yes → Implement → Verify → EvidenceNo → Document dependency

Authoritative input

Start with the requirements you recognize as authoritative.

Existing standards, policies, audit findings and previous assessments are welcome starting points.

You tell us which sources govern the engagement. We work from them.

If authority, scope or version is uncertain, you need to confirm which source should govern the assessment.

We do not determine which laws, regulations, standards or corporate policies should apply to your organization, but work from the requirements you provide or confirm.

Technical mapping

Make the requirement checkable.

A written requirement is only useful to us once we can translate it into concrete questions about the environment.

For example “Access must be restricted to authorized operators.”

→

Which systems? Which roles count as authorized? What access is permitted? What evidence is expected?

→

Checkable technical controls

Those answers turn written requirements into concrete things we can inspect and evidence.

The requirement determines what becomes relevant.

Depending on the requirement, we may need to inspect access controls, IAM policies, network boundaries, encryption, logging, retention, backup, recovery, configuration, monitoring, certificates, data location, resource policies, segmentation or other infrastructure settings.

We investigate what the requirement actually makes relevant. We don’t run a generic checklist simply because the checklist exists.

Evidence answers the requirement.

Evidence may include configuration exports, policy definitions, relevant logs, cloud-provider records, architecture documentation, resource inventories, access-control evidence or technical descriptions of implemented controls.

Evidence should answer the requirement — not merely prove that somebody inspected the system.

One requirement, several questions

Trace the requirement through the environment.

Sensitive data must be isolated and access restricted.

Data location → Network path → IAM → Operator access

Then we inspect the relevant controls.

Meets → Verify → Evidence
Gap → Remediate → Verify → Evidence

Existing work

Already have audit findings or evidence? Good.

If you recognize them as a valid basis for the engagement, we can start there rather than repeat work unnecessarily.

Audit findings, control mappings, architecture documentation, policies, evidence packs and remediation lists may all be useful.

We determine what remains usable, what needs to be verified again and what is still missing.

Possible outcomes

The result is not always the same.

Verified: The requirement is met and suitable evidence is available.
Gap identified: We can show what does not currently meet the requirement.
Gap remediated: We changed what is within our control, verified it and gathered evidence.
Action required elsewhere: We document what is needed so the responsible party can act.

Periodic verification

Need to check again later?

Some technical controls need periodic verification.

Where appropriate, recurring checks can be defined around an agreed scope, frequency and level of remediation authority.

Beyond the check

Requirements can affect more than a checklist.

They may influence architecture. They may require practical infrastructure changes. They may affect cost or performance. They may need to remain true during normal operations. A new environment may need them incorporated from the start.

That’s fine. We can handle the cloud infrastructure work around them too.