Offensive Security Assessments & Compliance Strategy & Resilience Industries Approach FAQ Request Scope

Honest gap analysis,
mapped to the frameworks
that matter.

Compliance checkboxes don't stop breaches — but the frameworks behind them encode decades of hard-won lessons. Our assessments tell you where you actually stand against the standards your industry, your customers, and your regulators expect. Then they tell you what to fix first.

12+
Frameworks covered, from NIST to NGCB
100%
Findings prioritized by business impact, not just severity
2–6w
Typical engagement window, scope-dependent
Roadmap
Every report ships with a remediation plan ranked by effort
Frameworks We Assess Against
NIST CSF 2.0
NIST 800-53
NIST 800-171
CIS Controls v8
CMMC 2.0
HIPAA
SOC 2
NGCB 5.260
// Core Assessment Services

Pick the framework.
We'll bring the honesty.

Every assessment is led by a senior practitioner with direct experience implementing the controls — not just documenting them. Below are the engagements clients ask for most.

/ 01 — NIST CYBERSECURITY FRAMEWORK

NIST CSF 2.0 Assessment

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework is the most widely adopted security maturity benchmark in the United States — and the version released in 2024 added a sixth function (Govern) that most organizations still haven't accounted for.

We assess your environment across all six functions — Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover — mapping current state to target state with a maturity score for each subcategory. The deliverable is a heatmap your board will actually understand, paired with a prioritized roadmap your engineers can actually execute.

Framework VersionNIST CSF 2.0 (Feb 2024)
Engagement Window3–5 weeks
Best ForBoards, insurers, M&A diligence
DeliverablesMaturity heatmap, gap analysis, roadmap
// ASSESSMENT APPROACH
How we run a CSF engagement
  • 01Kickoff: scope confirmation, stakeholder identification, target state definition
  • 02Document review: policies, procedures, prior audits, asset inventories
  • 03Stakeholder interviews across IT, security, compliance, and business units
  • 04Technical validation: configuration reviews, evidence collection, control sampling
  • 05Maturity scoring across all 6 functions / 23 categories / 106 subcategories
  • 06Roadmap workshop with executive and technical stakeholders
/ 02 — NIST 800-171 & CMMC

NIST 800-171 / CMMC 2.0 Readiness

If you handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) for the Department of Defense — directly or as a subcontractor — CMMC 2.0 is no longer optional. The rule is published. The clock is running. Most contractors are not where they need to be.

We assess your environment against all 110 NIST 800-171 r2 controls (and the additional CMMC Level 2 requirements), identify CUI flows you may not be tracking, validate System Security Plan (SSP) accuracy, and produce the documentation package required for a C3PAO assessment. We do not perform certified C3PAO assessments — but we make sure you pass the one you do.

TargetingCMMC Level 1 & Level 2
Engagement Window4–8 weeks
Best ForDefense contractors, DoD subs
DeliverablesSSP, POAM, gap analysis, evidence pack
// COMMON CMMC PITFALLS
Where contractors get stuck
  • !CUI scope creep — too much identified as CUI, dramatically expanding assessment scope
  • !Incomplete System Security Plan that doesn't match operational reality
  • !Missing FIPS 140-2/3 validated cryptography for CUI at rest and in transit
  • !Cloud services not yet authorized at FedRAMP Moderate equivalency
  • !Inadequate incident response procedures for CUI exposure
  • !Multi-factor authentication gaps in legacy systems still handling CUI
/ 03 — HEALTHCARE

HIPAA Security Risk Assessment

HIPAA's Security Rule has been law for over twenty years and is still the most commonly cited finding in OCR enforcement actions. The reason: most organizations conduct "risk analyses" that don't actually meet the HIPAA standard — and OCR knows it.

We deliver risk assessments that meet the formal HIPAA Security Rule requirement at 45 CFR § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) — systematic identification of threats and vulnerabilities, likelihood and impact analysis, current safeguard evaluation, and a documented risk treatment plan. Your assessment becomes evidence, not just paperwork.

StandardHIPAA Security Rule (45 CFR 164)
Engagement Window3–6 weeks
Best ForCovered entities & business associates
Aligned ToNIST 800-66, HHS OCR audit protocol
// ePHI FLOW
What we look at in a HIPAA assessment
  • Where ePHI is created, received, maintained, or transmitted
  • Administrative safeguards: workforce, training, sanctions, access management
  • Physical safeguards: facility access, workstation, device, and media controls
  • Technical safeguards: access control, audit, integrity, transmission security
  • Business Associate Agreement (BAA) inventory and gap review
  • Breach notification readiness against 60-day OCR reporting requirement
/ 04 — SOC 2 READINESS

SOC 2 Readiness Assessment

SOC 2 has become table stakes for selling software to enterprise customers — and the assessment is famously painful for organizations going through it the first time. Most failures stem from gaps that are easy to close if found early, and expensive to close if found by your auditor.

We assess your current controls against the Trust Services Criteria (Security is mandatory; Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy are optional), identify the gaps that would create exceptions in a Type I or Type II audit, and produce a readiness package that dramatically reduces the cost and timeline of your actual audit. We do not issue SOC 2 reports — but we make your auditor's job dramatically easier.

FrameworkAICPA Trust Services Criteria 2017 (revised 2022)
Engagement Window3–6 weeks
Best ForSaaS companies, fintech, healthtech
DeliverablesControl gap analysis, evidence library setup, remediation plan
// COMMON SOC 2 GAPS
Where first-time auditees stumble
  • !Logical access reviews not performed at required cadence
  • !Change management without formal approval evidence trail
  • !Vulnerability management without documented SLAs for remediation
  • !Vendor risk management inventory missing or incomplete
  • !Incident response procedures untested in production scenarios
  • !Backup & recovery procedures not regularly validated
// Specialized Assessments

Industry-specific work,
where the frameworks diverge.

Every regulated industry has standards that don't map cleanly to NIST or CIS. We have deep experience with the specialty frameworks below — including ones most generalist consultancies treat as someone else's problem.

/ 05 — NEVADA GAMING

NGCB Regulation 5.260 Compliance

Nevada Gaming Control Board's cybersecurity regulation requires annual risk assessments and independent reviews for licensed gaming operators. We assess against 5.260 and the associated MICS, with reports designed for regulatory submission.

NGCB 5.260 MICS Annual
/ 06 — NIST 800-53

NIST 800-53 Rev. 5 Assessment

The control catalog used by federal agencies and high-assurance environments. We assess against Moderate or High baselines, validate inheritance from cloud providers, and produce the evidence package for ATO or FedRAMP equivalency.

FedRAMP FISMA ATO
/ 07 — CIS CONTROLS

CIS Controls v8 Maturity Assessment

The Center for Internet Security's 18 controls remain the most practical maturity benchmark for mid-market organizations. We assess against Implementation Groups 1, 2, or 3 and produce a roadmap tied to measurable safeguards.

CIS v8 IG1 / IG2 / IG3 Mid-market
/ 08 — CLOUD POSTURE

Cloud Security Posture Assessment

AWS, Azure, and GCP configuration review against CIS Benchmarks and provider-specific best practices. We identify identity misconfiguration, data exposure, network architecture gaps, and the silent privilege chains most CSPM tools miss.

AWS Azure GCP CIS Benchmarks
/ 09 — VULN MGMT

Vulnerability Assessment & Program Review

Continuous-scan-style external and internal vulnerability assessments, plus a maturity review of your vulnerability management program — including SLAs, ownership, exception handling, and prioritization logic.

Internal / External CVSS EPSS
/ 10 — PCI-DSS

PCI-DSS Readiness

PCI-DSS v4.0 readiness for merchants and service providers. Scope definition, segmentation validation, control gap analysis, and pre-assessment work that makes your QSA engagement substantially faster and cheaper.

PCI-DSS v4.0 SAQ / RoC Segmentation
/ 11 — AI SECURITY

AI Security Assessment

Assessment against the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and OWASP LLM Top 10, covering AI system architecture, data governance, model lifecycle, third-party AI integrations, and the new risks introduced by agentic systems.

NIST AI RMF OWASP LLM Governance
/ 12 — QUANTUM

Post-Quantum Readiness Assessment

NIST has standardized the first post-quantum cryptography algorithms. We inventory your cryptographic dependencies — including the ones buried in vendor products — and produce a migration roadmap aligned to NIST PQC and CNSA 2.0 timelines. See full quantum services →

NIST PQC CNSA 2.0 Crypto inventory
NEW · Post-Quantum Readiness

Harvested now.
Decrypted later.
Plan now.

Adversaries are already capturing encrypted data and storing it for the day quantum computers can break today's cryptography — a strategy known as harvest-now-decrypt-later. NIST has standardized the first post-quantum algorithms. NSA has published CNSA 2.0. The migration window is open. Most organizations have no visibility into where their cryptographic exposure even lives. Adversim's quantum readiness practice changes that.

01

Cryptographic Inventory & Discovery

You cannot defend against quantum threats you cannot see. We systematically enumerate and catalog every cryptographic implementation across your infrastructure, applications, and data flows — RSA, ECC, DH, symmetric ciphers, TLS/SSL configurations, certificate authorities, PKI infrastructure, and the cryptographic dependencies hiding in vendor products. The output is a complete Cryptographic Bill of Materials (CBOM) — the foundation for every other quantum readiness activity.

CBOM CycloneDX 1–2 weeks
Assessment Approach
  • Automated crypto discovery across endpoints & networks
  • Manual review of code, PKI, & key management
  • Risk classification by algorithm & key length
  • CBOM compilation with ownership mapping
  • Migration candidate prioritization
Standards & References
  • NIST IR 8547 (PQC migration)
  • NIST SP 800-175B (crypto guidance)
  • ETSI TR 103 619 (quantum safe)
  • NSA CNSA 2.0 suite
  • CBOM / CycloneDX standard
02

Quantum Risk Assessment

A structured evaluation of your organization's exposure to quantum computing threats. We model harvest-now-decrypt-later scenarios, apply quantum threat timelines relevant to your data sensitivity, score your readiness against NIST and NSA guidance, and produce a prioritized risk register that lets you make informed investment decisions instead of guessing about an emerging threat.

HNDL Analysis CRQC Timeline 1–2 weeks
Assessment Approach
  • Asset & data sensitivity classification
  • Cryptographic dependency mapping
  • Threat timeline modeling (CRQC arrival models)
  • Shor's & Grover's algorithm scenario analysis
  • Quantum readiness scoring & benchmarking
Standards & References
  • NIST IR 8413 (PQC status report)
  • NSA CNSA 2.0 guidance
  • ENISA quantum threat landscape
  • DHS CISA PQC roadmap
  • NIST IR 8547 (migration guidance)
03

Post-Quantum Cryptography Migration Planning

A practical, phased roadmap to transition your cryptographic infrastructure to NIST-standardized post-quantum algorithms — ML-KEM (CRYSTALS-Kyber), ML-DSA (CRYSTALS-Dilithium), and SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+). We assess cryptographic agility, identify migration dependencies, sequence work by risk priority, and provide vendor-specific guidance for PKI, VPNs, authentication systems, and application-layer cryptography.

ML-KEM ML-DSA SLH-DSA 2–3 weeks
Assessment Approach
  • Inventory baseline & CBOM review
  • Algorithm replacement mapping by use case
  • Cryptographic agility assessment
  • Phased roadmap with milestones & dependencies
  • Hybrid classical/PQC transition planning
Standards & References
  • NIST FIPS 203 (ML-KEM)
  • NIST FIPS 204 (ML-DSA)
  • NIST FIPS 205 (SLH-DSA)
  • NIST SP 1800-38 (migration practice)
  • Open Quantum Safe (liboqs)
04

Quantum-Safe Architecture Review

Cryptographic vulnerabilities are embedded in architectural decisions. Fixing algorithms without addressing architecture creates a false sense of security. We evaluate your network segmentation, VPN configurations, identity infrastructure, key management, data-at-rest and data-in-transit protections, and cloud cryptographic controls through a quantum threat lens — then design the resilient target-state architecture you'll migrate to.

CNSA 2.0 Zero Trust 2–3 weeks
Assessment Approach
  • Architecture discovery & documentation
  • Quantum threat lens analysis across domains
  • Control gap assessment vs. CNSA 2.0
  • Target-state architecture design
  • Phased remediation roadmap
Standards & References
  • NSA CNSA 2.0 architecture guidance
  • CISA PQC transition guidance
  • NIST SP 800-208 (LMS)
  • NIST SP 800-207 (Zero Trust)
  • CSA PQC cloud guidance

Standard Quantum Readiness Deliverables

Every quantum engagement ships with the following — scoped to engagement type.

Executive Summary

Leadership overview of quantum exposure, threat timeline estimates, and priority actions.

Cryptographic Bill of Materials

Complete CBOM with algorithms, key lengths, locations, owners, and quantum risk ratings.

Quantum Vulnerability Heat Map

Visual mapping of quantum-vulnerable assets by system, application, and business criticality.

HNDL Risk Analysis

Harvest-now-decrypt-later exposure including data sensitivity classification and risk window.

Quantum Readiness Scorecard

Benchmarked scorecard measuring readiness against NIST and NSA CNSA 2.0 guidance.

Migration Roadmap

Phased migration plan with prioritized workstreams, timelines, dependencies, and success criteria.

Algorithm Replacement Matrix

Current cryptographic assets mapped to recommended NIST PQC replacements with implementation guidance.

Hybrid Crypto Design Guide

Technical guidance for hybrid classical/PQC implementations during the transition period.

Live Working Debrief

Walkthrough with technical and leadership stakeholders to align on next steps and execution.

// When an Assessment Is the Right Move

Most assessments
are driven by one of these.

Compliance work is rarely discretionary. Below are the most common triggers that bring clients to this conversation — if any sound familiar, we should talk.

// 01 — REGULATOR

A regulator is asking for it

HHS OCR audit, FFIEC examination, Nevada Gaming Control Board renewal, or a state attorney general inquiry. Regulatory-driven assessments require defensible documentation, not just internal opinion.

// 02 — INSURANCE

Your cyber insurance renewal is coming up

Carriers increasingly require formal cyber posture assessments before binding or renewing. A NIST CSF or CIS Controls assessment gives them what they need — and often reduces premium.

// 03 — CUSTOMER

A major customer is demanding it

SOC 2 Type II is the most common contract demand. CMMC for DoD subs. HITRUST for healthcare customers. We get you ready for the audit that follows — and dramatically reduce its cost.

// 04 — BOARD

Your board wants an objective answer

"Are we secure?" isn't a question internal teams can credibly answer to a board. A third-party NIST CSF assessment is the answer — measurable, comparable across years, and defensible to investors.

// 05 — M&A

You're buying or being bought

Acquirers want to know what they're inheriting. Sellers want to demonstrate good hygiene. An assessment positioned for diligence becomes a negotiation asset, not a liability.

// 06 — POST-INCIDENT

You're recovering from an incident

Post-breach, organizations often face regulatory inquiry, customer concern, and internal blame. A structured assessment provides forward momentum and demonstrates remediation in process.

Pick a framework.
We'll bring the roadmap.

Whether you're chasing CMMC, preparing for SOC 2, validating HIPAA, or just need an honest answer about where you stand — a 30-minute scoping call gives us what we need to send a fixed-fee proposal within 48 hours.

// Assessment FAQ

Common questions
about assessment engagements.

An audit is a formal, certified review by a qualified third party (a CPA firm for SOC 2, a C3PAO for CMMC, a QSA for PCI) that produces an attestation. An assessment is an evaluation against the same standards but without formal attestation — it's typically used to identify gaps before audit, to validate posture for internal or customer purposes, or to satisfy regulators who don't require formal certification. Adversim performs assessments and readiness work; we don't issue formal certifications, but we make sure your certifying body's job is easy.
Most assessments run between 3 and 8 weeks depending on scope. A focused NIST CSF assessment for a mid-market organization typically runs 3-5 weeks. CMMC readiness for a defense contractor runs 4-8 weeks depending on CUI scope. SOC 2 readiness varies widely with the number of Trust Services Criteria in scope and current control maturity.
Most assessment engagements fall between $15,000 and $50,000. Focused single-framework assessments for smaller organizations are on the lower end. Multi-framework engagements, complex cloud environments, or CMMC readiness with extensive CUI scope are on the higher end. All pricing is fixed-fee with scope written plainly in the proposal.
We design engagements to minimize your team's time. Typical asks: a kickoff call (1 hour with key stakeholders), stakeholder interviews (30–60 minutes each, 5–10 interviews depending on scope), document review (your team gathers, we read), and a roadmap workshop at the end (2 hours with executive and technical stakeholders). Most clients invest 20–40 hours of their team's time across a typical engagement.
Yes, through our Security Strategy & Resilience pillar. Many clients move from assessment into a vCISO or security program engagement to execute against the roadmap we deliver. Some prefer to take the roadmap in-house or to existing partners — both work fine. The roadmap is yours.
For regulatory contexts where a formal third-party assessment is required (HIPAA Security Rule, NGCB 5.260), yes — our assessments are designed to meet the formal documentation standard. For contexts requiring a certified audit (SOC 2, CMMC Level 2, PCI-DSS Level 1, ISO 27001), no — those require a credentialed auditor. We get you ready for that audit; we don't issue it.
Yes, and it's often more cost-effective. Many frameworks overlap substantially (NIST CSF maps to most others; NIST 800-53 is the parent catalog of many controls; CIS Controls map to NIST). A combined assessment against, say, NIST CSF + HIPAA, or CMMC + NIST 800-53 is typically only 30-50% more expensive than a single-framework assessment.
Most assessment frameworks require some level of technical validation — vulnerability scanning, configuration review, and sometimes penetration testing. Light technical validation is included in our standard assessments. Full penetration testing is scoped separately under our Offensive Security pillar, but we frequently bundle the two for clients who need both.
// Other Adversim Pillars

Assessment is the diagnosis.
The treatment is two pillars away.

A gap analysis tells you what needs to change. Offensive testing validates whether your controls actually work. Strategy engagements build the program that closes the gaps and keeps them closed.