RINP // CYBERSECURITY SERVICES
Resource CenterWhich decision priority do you have;which service is the right first step?
Offensive security services answer different questions. We distinguish application, network, cloud, human-layer, continuous testing, Red Team, and artificial intelligence engagements by the security finding you expect. We explain each option alongside the business decision it supports.
The decision tree clarifies your priority in a single question and points you to the right first service. It also makes the selection concrete by showing the scope and output differences between options that look similar to one another.
Adjacent serviceA one-minute branching path. Stepping back is always at your fingertips.
A single question: what is the object you want to verify?
The six branches below point you to the service closest to your decision priority. If more than one branch applies at the same time, which is a frequent situation, the discovery call path appears at the bottom of the page.
Do you want to verify a critical security finding in a web, API, or mobile workflow?
Before a new release, before a customer security review, or after a critical flow change, we run a focused, in-depth application verification at a single point; we deliver a prioritized remediation plan that maps directly to your backlog.
The right first step: Application Security Penetration Test
Across the web, API, and mobile surface, we run a verification focused on authorization boundaries, business logic, and tenant-boundary separation; we deliver a reproducible security finding and a prioritized remediation list.
Do you want to see where entry is possible across external, internal, wireless networks or the cloud control plane?
This branch has two sub-options: a network-surface finding (external, internal, wireless) or a cloud control-plane authorization and data chain. The two security findings are different from one another and are not combined into the same output.
The right first step: Network Security Penetration Test
Across the external, internal, and wireless network surface, we deliver a verified security finding, a chainable access vulnerability, segmentation impact, and a prioritized remediation track.
The right first step: Cloud Security Penetration Test
Across the AWS, Azure, and GCP control planes, we deliver a privilege escalation chain, a data access path, and transitive-permission visibility; we deliver a findings report together with the initial remediation order.
Are you testing the human layer with a programmatic measurement, or do you need an initial access vector in a Red Team scenario?
These two needs produce different security findings. One is a human-layer program, a recognize-and-report reflex, and process measurement; the other is the expansion of human-layer initial access along a Red Team attack path.
The right first step: Social Engineering Simulation
Reporting rate, time to report, the percentage of correct escalations, and control effectiveness are measured. We establish a non-accusatory, programmatic, and repeatable measurement track.
Is it crown-jewel impact, a threat-actor TTP simulation, or lateral movement following an assumed breach?
The Modular Red Team Simulation is run with three different modules. Your decision priority determines which module is the right first step; they are not all combined under a single “Red Team” umbrella.
The right first step: Objective-Based Red Team (RT module)
We deliver the attack-path findings report leading to a crown jewel or a business objective, together with a detection-gap matrix, chain-breaking control recommendations, and a timeline.
Alternative module: Threat Actor Simulation or Assumed Breach
The question “how would the most likely actor come at our industry?” opens the Threat Actor Simulation module; the question “if the attacker is already inside, how far do they get?” opens the Assumed Breach Simulation module. Both modules sit under the Modular Red Team Simulation umbrella.
Do you need a monthly cadence, re-verification, and remediation visibility across your web and API surfaces?
For teams with a high release cadence, a one-time test does not produce remediation visibility or a trend reading. This branch highlights the discipline of tracking, through a cadence, that findings are remediated and verified.
The right first step: Continuous Penetration Testing
We provide a minimum three-month cadence, a scheduled verification entitlement, a cycle in which a finding is remediated and re-verified, and management visibility; this is a remediation discipline that carries continuity, beyond a one-time project.
Is it a runtime GenAI chain, a model supply chain, or an AI leverage for an internal offensive workflow?
There are three different services under the artificial intelligence heading, and these are the families with the highest risk of being confused. The distinction between the object being tested and the object being improved is made visible in this branch.
The right first step: Generative AI Red Team
The object being tested is your GenAI product or agent. The abuse path, authorization, and data flow across the prompt, tool, RAG, and MCP chain are produced as a security finding.
The right first step: AI Model Supply Chain Assurance
“What in our model and release pipeline are we trusting?” is opened up on this page. Source provenance, component list, attestation, registry, and distribution trust are produced as a security finding.
The right first step: AI for Penetration Testing and Red Team
Here there is no object being tested; the object being improved is your offensive delivery workflow. Across the reconnaissance, finding-triage, reporting, and retest cycle, we provide a workflow design that preserves expert oversight, an approval model, an evaluation set, and a controlled pilot engagement.
If more than one branch applies at the same time, a discovery call is the shortest path.
In practice, the decision priority often does not fall into a single branch. While you have a new-release priority, a customer security review may be approaching at the same time; while you have a cloud authorization-chain question, an AI integration may be going live at the same time. Clarifying these combinations in a short discovery call is faster than forcing yourself into a single service on the page.
- If the question of one-time depth versus continuous cadence is not clear, the discovery call opens up that choice.
- If “AI security” arrives on its own, which chain (runtime, model pipeline, internal workflow) will be verified is separated out in the discovery call.
- A customer security review and the audit-and-regulation assurance tracks are different pages; the type of priority is separated out in the discovery call.
// NEXT STEP
Let us clarify your decision priority in 30 minutes.
In the discovery call, we clarify the decision priority, the target surface, the finding expectation, and the schedule together. The binding scope is finalized after discovery with the service intake document and an approved scope-of-work document.