You are designing or significantly changing your architecture
A new product, major feature, infrastructure segment, or architectural redesign is still at a stage where security decisions can be made early.
Engagement 02
Threat Modeling as a Service
“What are the most realistic attack paths in our architecture, and which design changes remove the most risk?”
Lion Sec decomposes your architecture into assets, components, identities, data flows and trust boundaries, identifies threats systematically with STRIDE, and combines them into the multi-step attack paths that matter. You get the design changes that remove the most risk for the least engineering effort.
- Duration
- 10 business days
- Access
- Architecture documentation only
- Format
- One agreed system per engagement
The problem
Controls chosen without attack paths are expensive guesses
Your system can be functional and well-engineered while still enabling attack paths no one has considered. Without understanding those paths, security decisions default to generic best practices — leaving critical logical and structural weaknesses unaddressed and engineering effort focused on the wrong controls.
The later these weaknesses are discovered, the more expensive they become to fix.
It is for you if
Your infrastructure is becoming more complex
You are moving to cloud, Kubernetes, or microservices, or introducing new sensitive data flows and external integrations.
Your engineering is strong, but dedicated security architecture expertise is missing
Your team knows how to build reliable systems, but needs a structured way to understand how those systems could be attacked or abused.
You need to validate the security of an existing architecture
Security controls have accumulated without systematic threat modeling, customer requirements are increasing, or an incident has exposed architectural weaknesses.
What Lion Sec does
How the engagement runs
A structured pass over one agreed system, from decomposition to prioritized mitigation.
- 01
Architecture decomposition
The system is modeled explicitly, so the analysis has something concrete to reason about.
- Assets, actors and components
- Data flows and dependencies
- Trust boundaries
- 02
Threat identification
STRIDE-based analysis applied to components, identities, data flows and trust boundaries — systematic coverage instead of whatever comes to mind in a workshop.
- 03
Attack-path modeling
Individual threats are combined into realistic multi-step compromise scenarios, each with its prerequisites, the assets it reaches and the impact it produces.
- 04
Risk prioritization and mitigation design
Each attack path is rated on likelihood, technical impact, confidence and existing mitigations to establish residual architectural risk. Recommendations are then written at architecture level and ordered by risk reduction against implementation effort.
What you provide
No access to your environment is required. The engagement works from documentation and a small number of engineering conversations:
- Architecture description or data-flow diagrams
- Components and their responsibilities
- Trust boundaries and data flows
- Critical assets
- User and service identities
- External integrations and internet-facing components
- Authentication and authorization design
- Existing architectural security controls
What you receive
Deliverables
A model your engineers can keep using after the engagement ends.
Executive Summary
Architectural risk posture, the top attack scenarios, the systemic weaknesses behind them and the recommended order of work.
Technical Threat Model
The complete model and its reasoning.
- System model and threat register
- STRIDE findings with confidence ratings
- Attack-path scenarios with evidence and rationale
- Assumptions and unknowns, stated as such
90-Day Security Architecture Roadmap
P0 immediate through P3 at 90 days, with every recommendation mapped to one or more identified attack scenarios.
Not included
The engagement analyzes design, not running systems. Not included:
- Penetration testing, exploitation or proof-of-concept work
- Vulnerability scanning and configuration audit
- Source-code review
- Policy audit
- Verification of controls in production
- Compliance certification
Scope boundaries are stated in the report as well, so findings are never mistaken for verification of something that was not examined.
After the engagement
What changes
Before
The engineering team understands how the system should function, but has no structured view of how its architecture could be abused or compromised.
After
Your team gains a clear view of the most relevant attack paths, the design decisions behind them, and which mitigations will reduce the most risk — with a threat model that can be reused in future design reviews.
Why this is worth doing now
A design decision is the cheapest security control available, and it is only available before the system ships. Once the architecture is in production, the same mitigation becomes a migration.
Other engagements
Next step
Talk through your situation before committing to anything.
An introductory call establishes whether the Threat Modeling engagement is the right answer for your company right now, what it would cover in your environment, and what you would have at the end of it.