Outcomes in context
Public and anonymized experiences across maturity, evidence and technical validation. Each case shows the initial pressure, the work performed and what remained operational afterward.
Featured public case
Rivkin Securities · Australia · 6 months
Public case · Maturity program
Talsoft supported the Australian fintech in formalizing its cybersecurity program and connecting governance, risk, response, monitoring and technical validation.
Enhance and formalize the existing security structure with a shared view for leadership, technology and third parties.
A coordinated and documented program aligned with ISO 27001, ASIC cyber resilience good practices and the Australian Privacy Act.
Approximate comparison between the initial assessment and the end of the six-month engagement.
Approximate percentages for controls included in this assessment. They describe this project, not a certification or a guaranteed outcome for other organizations.
Original CTO testimonial
“Leandro and the team did a great job enhancing and formalising our existing security structure. The engagement was well-organised, consistently documented, and delivered to a high standard.”
Case published with authorization and limited scope. It does not imply certification or regulatory approval; architecture, vendors, findings and sensitive data are omitted.
Discuss a similar programOther entry points
Identity is protected, while the context, applied judgment and resulting capability remain concrete.
Anonymized case · B2B SaaS / services
Anonymized case · SaaS / fintech / services
One shared criterion
Business context, assets, third parties, incidents and available evidence.
Gaps organized by risk, owners, dependencies and real capacity.
Controls, evidence and follow-up that remain after delivery.
Selected social proof
Three references connected to clarity, action and technical quality. Every project outcome depends on its scope and context.
“Their assessment was sharp, detailed, and refreshingly easy to act on. We came away more secure and far better informed. Exactly the expertise we were hoping for.”
“The action plan made the security audit useful and effective.”
“They carried out a penetration testing activity professionally.”
Anonymized cases never publish names, domains, IPs, screenshots, payloads or contractual data. They do show the business problem, approach and resulting capabilities.
Security work involves architecture, exposure and sensitive decisions. We publish context, approach and capabilities without revealing exploitable or contractual information.
No. They show concrete work and capabilities within a defined scope, but do not guarantee certifications, external approvals or the absence of incidents.
Customer or audit pressure usually points toward maturity and evidence. Technical uncertainty may call for a PenTest. A short conversation helps validate the right entry point.
In a 30-minute conversation we can frame the current pressure and decide whether to begin with a GAP, PenTest, readiness or an ongoing program.
