THE ATTACK PATH
Find the attack path. Prioritize the critical fix. Prove it held.
Limitls leads authorized security assessments across applications, APIs, AI systems, and the connected paths that attackers or autonomous agents may exploit. Qualified specialists perform hands-on adversarial assessments and revalidation. Limitls links evidence to remediation priorities and your release or risk decisions.
Fixed proposal after technical scoping
Starting fees are in USD and apply to the agreed assessment scope. Final scope and fees are confirmed before kickoff. Additional business units, systems, jurisdictions, and implementation work are scoped separately. Fees exclude applicable taxes.
- The client authorizes the engagement and provides the Rules of Engagement.
- Appropriately qualified specialists perform the authorized hands-on security assessment and revalidation.
- Limitls manages scope, governance, evidence, remediation priorities, communication, and decision-making.
- Confirm any license, registration, certification, or authorization required for the jurisdiction and agreed scope before work begins.
The connected path is where security can break down.
The application trusts the API. The API trusts an identity. The identity reaches data and tools. An AI agent can read untrusted content and act across that chain.
Assessing components in isolation can overlook critical business paths, especially when identities, data, cloud services, AI models, tools, and workflows interact.
One connected attack surface. One accountable security path.
Applications, APIs, infrastructure, identities, AI systems, and agents are interconnected. We define the security scope based on paths that access sensitive data, inherit trust, trigger actions, or disrupt operations.
Depending on the agreed scope, the engagement may include application and API penetration testing, adversarial AI evaluation, and validation of connected attack paths.
Connected trust path
- Applications & APIs
- Identity & Access
- Data & Tools
- AI & Agents
- Business Operations
Application, API, and infrastructure exposure
- Authentication, authorization, and tenant boundaries
- Business logic and workflow abuse
- Input, file, data, and integration paths
- Secrets, identities, cloud services, and privilege chains
- Rate, resource, and automation abuse, where authorized
AI and agentic exposure
- Direct and indirect prompt injection through user input, retrieved content, tool output, memory, and MCP channels
- Excessive agency and unsafe action chains
- Identity, permission, memory, and secret exposure
- MCP and tool misuse across trust boundaries
- Third-party model, package, dataset, prompt-template, tool, MCP server, and agent-registry supply-chain compromise
- Data leakage, unsafe output handling, and control bypass
- Cost and resource exhaustion, including failure-recovery behavior
One security scope follows the path across both surfaces and connects each material finding to a business consequence, remediation priority, and decision owner.
The security plan follows the attack paths your architecture makes possible and the written Rules of Engagement, not a generic checklist.
What you receive
Actionable evidence for your technical and leadership teams.
Scope and authorization record
The approved assets, environments, techniques, exclusions, working window, and Rules of Engagement.
Attack-surface and threat-path map
A comprehensive view of relevant identities, data, tools, integrations, and workflows.
Evidence-backed findings
Material findings prioritized by severity, exploitability, and business impact.
Reproducible evidence and remediation guidance
Clear evidence, reproducible steps, and prioritized recommendations for each material finding.
Executive and engineering reporting
A leadership summary with supporting technical details for engineering and security teams.
Remediation working session
A structured session to align priorities, assign owners, confirm acceptance evidence, and determine the next security decision.
Scoped revalidation result
A dated record confirming whether agreed critical fixes addressed the original findings.
Limitations and residual-risk statement
A clear record of coverage, exclusions, outstanding issues, and decision ownership.
How security assurance works
Rules of engagement
Rules of Engagement. Before active security work begins, the client approves in-scope assets, permitted techniques, the working window, stop conditions, access, and the communication path.
During the engagement, we follow the agreed communication and escalation process for findings that present immediate or material risk.
Authorize and frame.
Name the target, business consequence, environment, exclusions, authorized accounts, stop conditions, and communications.
Model the attack paths.
Map identities, data, tools, integrations, trust boundaries, and high-consequence workflows.
Probe and reproduce.
Qualified specialists use manual adversarial techniques and targeted automation to identify and safely reproduce material security findings.
Prioritize and close.
Translate findings into remediation priorities, assign accountable owners, and define acceptance evidence. Scope hands-on implementation separately if needed.
Revalidate critical fixes.
Qualified specialists verify the agreed critical fixes. Limitls documents closure status, remaining limitations, and residual risk decisions with dates.
Revalidation reconnects to the affected attack path and finding.
Delivery gates
Four decision points keep the engagement controlled from authorization through closeout. Security approvals occur when the required evidence is ready, not on a universal calendar date. Completion and commercial terms are defined in the proposal.
- Before active security work begins
Authorization gate
Confirm written scope, asset-owner authorization, Rules of Engagement, access, working window, stop conditions, and communications.
- After discovery and before intrusive activity expands
Attack-path scope confirmation
Confirm the connected paths, techniques, exclusions, and safeguards that govern active work.
- During active work, when a critical finding is confirmed
Critical-finding decision gate
Record the evidence, notify the agreed contacts, and decide whether to continue, constrain, or pause the affected activity.
- At the end of the scoped engagement
Closeout and revalidation gate
Accept the findings and residual-risk record, assign remediation owners, and confirm any separately scoped revalidation or remediation work.
Fit
Best fit
Best suited for US product teams, startups, GCC mid-market and enterprise organizations, regulated entities, and public-sector or government-linked organizations needing defensible security evidence before:
- A launch or production release
- Enterprise procurement or customer assurance
- A material architecture or product change
- The introduction of AI agents, MCP servers, or connected tools
- An incident follow-up or remediation decision
Not a fit
- Work without written authorization from the owner of every in-scope asset
- Requests for a compliance certificate alone
- Undefined all-systems coverage within a scoped engagement
- An engagement intended only to generate scanner output
- A guarantee that no future attack can succeed
Separately scoped
The core engagement includes findings triage, a remediation working session, prioritized guidance, and one defined revalidation window.
Hands-on remediation engineering, control redesign, and system hardening are available if the client requests a Limitls-led delivery team to implement agreed fixes.
The additional proposal specifies included findings or surfaces, assigns engineering and specialist roles, and defines required acceptance evidence.
FAQ
Start with the path that would hurt most.
Provide the application, API, AI system, or connected workflow, along with the relevant environment and business consequence. We will define a bounded, authorized scope before starting active security work.