Four assessment practices. One evidence-first standard.
Penetration testing and system accreditation are the core of SCS's work, alongside adversary simulation and AI security assessments. Every engagement is tailored to the actual risk profile of your systems and delivered by human operators, not automated reports.
Penetration Testing: Applications, APIs & Networks
Scanners identify known patterns. We identify real exploit chains — the ones that require understanding how your application actually works, who has access to what, and where business logic can be abused. Network, cloud, and mobile testing are available as components or standalone engagements.
Who This Is For
- SaaS and product teams needing pre-release validation
- API-first platforms with complex authorization models
- Federal systems and contractors that need testing evidence for ATO, FedRAMP, or CMMC
- Organizations with prior pentest findings that weren't adequately fixed
- Engineering teams that need findings engineers can actually remediate
What We Test
- Authentication flows, session management, access control
- REST and GraphQL API security, object-level authorization
- Business logic and abuse-case scenarios
- Input handling, injection, and output encoding
- Internal and external networks, lateral movement, and credential exposure
- Cloud-connected services and third-party integrations
- Mobile application testing (iOS, Android — where in scope)
In the DC metro: penetration testing in Washington, DC.
System Accreditation & Compliance Readiness
Compliance is a document. Security is technical evidence. For federal systems pursuing an Authority to Operate under RMF, and for organizations navigating CMMC, NIST 800-171, or DFARS, SCS validates controls hands-on and builds the package from what the system actually does — not checkbox consulting.
Who This Is For
- Federal programs navigating RMF and Authority to Operate
- Defense contractors pursuing CMMC Level 2 or Level 3
- Organizations under DFARS 252.204-7012 requirements
- Companies needing NIST 800-171 gap assessment and SSP development
What We Provide
- NIST SP 800-53 control validation and security test & evaluation (ST&E)
- System Security Plan (SSP) and POA&M development
- ISSO support and continuous monitoring planning
- NIST 800-171 / CMMC gap assessment with risk-prioritized findings
- Scope reduction and secure architecture review for CUI isolation
- Cleared personnel for sensitive environment access where required
For federal systems: RMF & ATO support, step by step.
Adversary Simulation
Full-scope red team engagements that emulate sophisticated adversary TTPs across people, process, and technology. Scoped for mature security programs with defined objectives — not packaged as a commodity product.
Engagement Types
- Full-scope assumed-breach and external intrusion scenarios
- Insider threat simulation and lateral movement testing
- Detection and response validation against real TTPs
- Social engineering and physical security components (where in scope)
Approach
- Objective-based scoping — not off-the-shelf packages
- Custom TTPs matched to your threat model and environment
- Real-world tradecraft from operators with federal experience
- MITRE ATT&CK-aligned findings and detection gap analysis
AI Security Assessments
Organizations deploying LLM-powered features, RAG systems, and AI agents face attack surfaces that didn't exist three years ago. SCS provides structured security review of AI-enabled systems before adversaries test them for you.
For Microsoft 365 Copilot, a fixed-scope Copilot Exposure Snapshot (3-5 business days, $3,500-$7,500) or a full exposure assessment tests what Copilot can surface from existing permissions.
Who This Is For
- Engineering teams shipping LLM-powered features in production
- Organizations using AI agents with access to internal APIs or databases
- Security leaders responsible for AI systems in regulated environments
- Companies building RAG systems over sensitive data
What We Assess
- Prompt injection — direct and indirect via external content
- Insecure tool execution and API trust chains
- Data leakage through model output and RAG context
- Authorization boundary failures and identity confusion
- Unsafe output handling in downstream processes
- Secrets exposure, logging gaps, workflow abuse paths
- Microsoft 365 Copilot exposure across SharePoint, Teams, OneDrive, and connectors
- Evidence bundles and retest plans for remediation validation
Start from the system, not the service name.
Buyers often arrive knowing something needs testing but not which practice applies. The mapping below is the same one SCS uses on a discovery call to route an engagement.
Which assessment fits your situation
| You ship a web application or API | Penetration testing, including business-logic and authorization testing. |
| You need an internal or external network tested | Network penetration testing, covering exposed services, lateral movement, and credential exposure. |
| Your federal system needs an Authority to Operate | System accreditation support: RMF control validation, ST&E, and SSP and POA&M development. |
| You carry CMMC, NIST SP 800-171, or FedRAMP obligations | Compliance readiness, validating technical controls rather than documenting intent. |
| You want to test detection and response | Adversary simulation, scoped to objectives and aligned to MITRE ATT&CK. |
| Your product calls an LLM API | LLM security assessment, covering injection, leakage, policy bypass, and unsafe output handling. |
| Your system retrieves documents before answering | RAG security assessment, focused on indexing, chunking, permissions, and tenant boundaries. |
| Your agent can call tools or change records | AI agent security assessment, focused on tool authorization, approval gates, and unsafe action paths. |
| You are rolling out Microsoft 365 Copilot | Copilot Exposure Snapshot, then a full exposure assessment if the snapshot surfaces broad access. |
Engagement and scoping questions.
Which assessment do we need?
It depends on what the system does and what decision the work supports. An application, API, or network that needs validation starts with a penetration test. A federal system pursuing an Authority to Operate starts with RMF control validation and package support, and a contractor handling CUI starts with CMMC and NIST SP 800-171 readiness. LLM features, RAG systems, agents, and Microsoft 365 Copilot each have a dedicated AI assessment. If you are unsure, a discovery call scopes it from the architecture rather than from a package name.
How much does a security assessment cost?
Penetration tests and accreditation engagements are scoped to the system, the environments in scope, and the evidence required, and the cost is agreed before work begins rather than sold as a fixed package. The exception is the fixed-scope Microsoft 365 Copilot Exposure Snapshot, which runs 3-5 business days at $3,500-$7,500.
How long does an engagement take?
A single-application penetration test typically runs 5-10 business days; multi-application, API-heavy, and network engagements are scoped individually. Accreditation support follows the system's RMF or CMMC milestones. In every case the timeline is agreed before work begins. The Copilot Exposure Snapshot is a fixed 3-5 business days.
Do you work with federal contractors and regulated organizations?
Yes. SCS supports federal contractors and regulated organizations with technical control validation, CMMC and NIST SP 800-171 readiness, application and API testing, and cleared personnel where engagement requirements call for them.
Do you provide retesting after remediation?
Yes. Every confirmed finding ships with named retest cases, so the same conditions can be replayed against the remediated system to verify the fix rather than re-running the whole engagement.
What is different about working with SCS rather than a larger firm?
Assessments are delivered by senior practitioners rather than layers of account management, and findings are manually validated before delivery. The report reflects behavior an operator reproduced against your deployed system, with the evidence attached, rather than unvalidated scanner output.