A small team that takes the whole problem.
Artan exists because the gap between the software working and the system being safe is where most incidents live, and that gap is usually owned by nobody.
We stopped separating building from defending.
The traditional split is convenient for vendors and expensive for clients. A development agency ships an application. A security firm audits it six months later and produces a list. A network provider owns the cabling and none of the consequences. Between those three contracts sits every unpatched server, every over-permissive firewall rule and every credential that was emailed once and never rotated.
Artan is organised the other way around. The engineer who writes the API knows how the server behind it is hardened. The person who designs the network segmentation has read the threat model of the application. When something breaks at 2am, one team owns it, and that team already knows how the whole thing fits together.
- Engineering-led. You talk to the people doing the work, not an account manager relaying it.
- Small on purpose. Few concurrent clients, senior people on every engagement.
- English-speaking and remote-first. We work across time zones with clear written communication as the default.
- Authorised work only. Every security test runs under signed permission and a defined scope.
Four rules we do not bend.
They cost us work occasionally. They are also the reason clients stay.
Evidence over opinion
A complaint that something feels slow becomes a measurement. A hope that something is secure becomes a test with a result. If we recommend a change, we can show you the data that motivated it, and the data that proves it worked afterwards.
Security is the default setting
Encryption, least privilege, logging and backups are part of the base price, not an upsell tier. A system delivered by us is hardened when it ships, because retrofitting security is always the more expensive path.
Documentation is a deliverable
Diagrams, runbooks, credentials in a proper vault, and a written explanation of why things are the way they are. If you replaced us tomorrow, your next engineer should be productive in a day. That is the standard we write to.
We say no
To work outside our competence, to deadlines that guarantee a bad result, and to any testing without written authorisation. A referral to someone better suited is worth more to both of us than a project we deliver badly.
The first thirty days.
A typical engagement, so you know what you are buying before you buy it.
Discovery call and access
We agree the problem in writing, sign the NDA and authorisation paperwork, and get read-only access to whatever we need to look at. Nothing is changed at this stage.
Assessment
Code, servers, network and access are mapped. Findings are collected with evidence and ranked by business impact rather than by scanner severity.
Report and scope
You receive two documents: a short summary for decision makers and a technical detail pack. Then a proposed scope with cost and timeline, which you are free to take elsewhere.
First delivery increment
Work starts on the highest-impact items, in reviewable pieces, with a weekly written update. The quick wins land in this window; larger builds continue on the agreed schedule.
Operate or hand over
Either we keep running it under a retainer with a named contact and defined response times, or we hand it over with full documentation and stay available for questions.
What we work with.
Tools are chosen per project. This is the ground we are already standing on.
Development
Security
Network
Infrastructure
Operations
Cloud
Bring us the awkward problem.
The system nobody wants to touch, the audit finding with no owner, the network that only one person understands. That is the work we are best at.