Services
Break the design before an adversary does.
Adversary scenarios run against a network-level simulation of your architecture, then redesign until it holds — without touching production.
Why people call
- The design is signed off and nobody has tested the assumption it rests on.
- A tabletop exercise produced agreement in a room and no change to the architecture.
- You need to know whether segmentation holds, and testing it in production is not an option.
- An insurer or a board wants evidence rather than assurance.
What we design
- Build the twin
- A network-level simulation assembled from your drawings and asset list. Not a replica of the plant — a replica of the architecture, which is what is being tested.
- Run authentic scenarios
- Adversary behaviour grounded in what is actually observed against industrial environments, including MITRE ATT&CK for ICS, rather than a generic threat list.
- Define what holding means
- Pass criteria agreed before the test, so the result is a finding rather than an opinion.
- Redesign and retest
- The point is not the report. The point is the design change, and the second run that shows it worked.
What you are left holding
The work survives the consultant leaving, or it was not architecture.
- Simulation model of the architecture as-designed
- Scenario set with pass criteria agreed in advance
- Findings ranked by consequence, not by severity label
- Redesign proposals with the trade-offs stated
- Retest results against the original criteria
Start with the drawings you already have.
Even an out-of-date drawing tells us more in thirty minutes than a questionnaire does in a week.
Or email info@radconsulting.au.