Cyber security services for Microsoft 365 and Azure

We provide scoped security assessments, remediation planning, implementation and support across Microsoft 365, Azure and connected services. An engagement can focus on a single area, such as identity or information protection, or cover several control domains. We agree the environments, deliverables and acceptance criteria before work begins.

Yes. We review the agreed configuration and available evidence, including access policies, privileged roles, protection coverage and relevant collaboration settings. Findings identify the observed exposure, recommended action and implementation dependencies. The assessment records its scope and limitations so stakeholders understand what has been reviewed.

We can take agreed findings through design, pilot, implementation and validation. The remediation backlog sets priorities and identifies changes that require licensing, business decisions or coordination with other suppliers. You can commission an assessment first or agree a combined assessment and implementation engagement.

We review current policies, user groups, service dependencies and emergency access arrangements before designing changes. Report-only evaluation and pilot groups are used where appropriate, followed by representative testing and staged enforcement. Exceptions and rollback steps are documented before wider deployment.

We review administrator assignments, privileged access processes, application consent and workload identities within the agreed scope. Improvements can include reducing standing privilege, introducing appropriate role activation controls and replacing unnecessary credentials or permissions. Required licensing and operational dependencies are checked during design.

Yes. We can review and implement supported Intune and Microsoft Defender controls for the agreed device estate and Microsoft 365 services. Work includes checking onboarding coverage, policy configuration and ownership of remediation. Supported platforms, licensing and coexistence with existing tools are established before deployment.

We start with the information you need to protect, where it is held and how people use it. We then design labels and DLP policies for agreed scenarios and supported locations, test the effect on genuine work and tune the results. User guidance and exception handling form part of the deployment rather than being left until enforcement.

We assess the relevant dependencies between Microsoft services, existing security products and on-premises systems. Integrations, telemetry and control boundaries are selected according to supported capabilities and access. We define which systems are in scope and coordinate changes with their owners instead of assuming every platform is covered.

Continuous monitoring, managed detection and response, and incident response retainers require an explicit service agreement. A configuration or readiness engagement does not itself provide round-the-clock monitoring. We define monitoring hours, escalation routes, response authority and supplier responsibilities for any ongoing service.

No. A configuration and control assessment reviews the agreed environment, evidence and protection settings. Penetration testing actively tests for exploitable weaknesses under a separately authorised scope. If you need that work, its methods, systems, rules of engagement and deliverables must be agreed separately.

Some controls depend on your Microsoft subscriptions, service plans and the users or workloads being protected. We check entitlement and deployment dependencies during discovery, then identify gaps before recommending implementation. Any additional licensing and consumption costs need to be understood as part of the delivery decision.

We agree acceptance criteria linked to the controls being changed, then capture configuration evidence and validation results. Measures can include protection coverage, privileged access reduction and tested policy behaviour. Remaining exceptions and operational responsibilities are recorded; a higher posture score alone is not treated as proof that every risk has been resolved.