Architecture-led, fixed-scope, delivered as artifacts

The problem

Most cloud estates grow by accretion: accounts nobody owns, IAM nobody can explain, network paths nobody drew. The cost surfaces later — during a security review, a customer diligence cycle, or an authorization effort that stalls on the first architecture question.

What Eclipse does

• Account and organization structure designed for isolation and auditability
• Identity and access architecture — human and workload
• Network segmentation, encryption, and key management design
• Logging and telemetry-aware architecture built for detection
• Infrastructure-as-code baselines your team owns afterward

Outcomes

A documented architecture with defensible decisions, an IaC baseline, and design artifacts that shorten every future review.

The problem

FedRAMP punishes improvisation. Teams misdraw the authorization boundary, underestimate the engineering behind the baselines, and discover documentation debt months into the process — while the federal opportunity that justified the effort waits.

What Eclipse does

• Authorization boundary definition and architecture review
• Gap assessment against current FedRAMP baselines
• Remediation engineering — the controls themselves, not just findings
• SSP-aligned documentation and evidence preparation
• Advisory continuity through assessment and beyond

Outcomes

A defined boundary, a prioritized remediation plan with engineering behind it, and architecture and documentation ready for assessment.

The problem

Defense supply chain obligations are now enforced, not aspirational. A self-reported score built on policy documents collapses under assessment, and an over-scoped environment makes every one of the 110 requirements more expensive than it needs to be.

What Eclipse does

• CUI boundary scoping — often an enclave architecture that shrinks the problem
• Control implementation in infrastructure, not just policy language
• System Security Plan and POA&M development
• Evidence workflows that keep the score defensible over time

Outcomes

A right-sized CUI boundary, controls an assessor can verify, and documentation that supports your reported score.

The problem

You need testing that does two jobs at once: satisfy the customer or assessor demanding it, and actually probe the paths an attacker would take. A rebranded vulnerability scan does neither.

What Eclipse does

• Scoped testing of web applications, APIs, cloud environments, and networks
• AI and LLM application testing — prompt injection, tool abuse paths, and data exposure through model outputs
• Threat modeling that targets testing where the architecture is most exposed
• Findings written for engineers — reproducible, prioritized, with remediation guidance
• Retesting and attestation letters suitable for customers and assessors

Outcomes

A prioritized findings report, verified remediation, and an attestation you can put in front of the people asking for it.

The problem

AI capability ships faster than AI governance. Enterprise buyers and regulators are beginning to ask pointed questions about how AI systems are governed, assessed, and controlled — and "we have a policy" is not an answer that survives diligence.

What Eclipse does

• AI management system (AIMS) scoping aligned to ISO/IEC 42001
• AI risk and impact assessment processes that engineering teams will actually run
• Control mapping and policy structure, integrated with an existing ISMS where one exists
• Readiness review ahead of certification or customer audit

Outcomes

A certifiable-aligned AIMS structure and an AI governance posture you can defend in writing.

The problem

Early product decisions — tenancy, authentication, data handling — become security debt at exactly the wrong moment: during the enterprise deal or federal opportunity that depends on passing review.

What Eclipse does

• Tenancy and isolation architecture for multi-tenant SaaS
• Authentication and authorization design, including OIDC and federated identity patterns
• Data classification, lifecycle, and residency design
• Threat modeling and secure SDLC integration
• Product readiness review against the markets you're selling into

Outcomes

An architecture that answers diligence questionnaires before they're asked, documented for both engineers and evaluators.

The problem

The Multiple Award Schedule process is procedural and unforgiving. Technical firms stall on SIN selection, narrative requirements, and pricing documentation — or submit offers that don't position their actual capabilities.

What Eclipse does

• Offer readiness assessment and SIN strategy
• Technical narratives that reflect what you actually do
• Pricing support documentation and structure
• Compliance documentation review before submission

Outcomes

A complete, submission-ready offer package and positioning you can build a public-sector pipeline on.

The problem

Most compliance programs run on spreadsheets and screenshots collected in a panic before each audit. Evidence goes stale the day it's captured, and nobody can say whether a control that passed in March still passes in June.

What Eclipse does

• Control-to-infrastructure mapping across your frameworks
• Automated evidence collection from cloud and CI/CD systems
• Continuous monitoring pipelines for control drift
• Audit-ready evidence repositories with provenance

Outcomes

Audit preparation measured in days instead of months, and evidence that's current because it collects itself.

The problem

Sometimes you don't need a program — you need a qualified outside opinion. A design about to be built, an environment about to be assessed, an acquisition target about to be integrated. The gaps are cheaper to find now.

What Eclipse does

• Structured review against your threat model and applicable frameworks
• Design critique with specific, prioritized findings
• Readiness-focused assessment ahead of audits or customer reviews
• Remediation roadmap sized to your team's capacity

Outcomes

A clear findings report, a prioritized roadmap, and validation you can cite in the reviews that follow.

The problem

Teams are wiring language models and autonomous agents into production — with tool access, credentials, and customer data — faster than anyone is drawing the trust boundaries. Security reviewers and enterprise buyers have started asking how these systems are contained, and "the vendor handles that" is not an answer that survives diligence.

What Eclipse does

• Agentic workflow architecture — cloud-agnostic and model-provider-agnostic
• Trust boundary and tool permissioning design for agent capabilities
• Human-in-the-loop approval gates for consequential actions
• Credential isolation so models never hold secrets
• Prompt-injection threat modeling and mitigations
• Audit logging of model interactions, designed for governance review

Outcomes

Agentic capability that survives security review: documented trust boundaries, contained tool access, and an audit trail that supports the governance posture our ISO/IEC 42001 advisory helps you formalize.