From blind spots to clear decisions.

An outage affects each business process differently. For each incident scenario, we analyse disruption, recovery work and financial losses, accounting for deadlines, catch-up capacity and dependencies.

• Losses by scenario — with lost revenue, additional work and recovery costs assessed separately.
• The effect of longer outages — showing when losses increase or a critical deadline is missed.
• A comparison of contingency options — to identify which temporary way of working limits the consequences.

Using scenarios and probability models, we estimate how often cyber incidents could occur and the losses they could cause. Business data, threat information and specialist estimates inform the analysis.

• Loss ranges and estimated probabilities — to weigh risks against what your organisation can absorb.
• Visibility of large losses — including outcomes that an annual average can obscure.
• The effect of uncertain assumptions — showing which additional information could change your decision.

A new tool, a larger team or improvements to existing controls: what does each option add? The analysis calculates costs and expected risk reduction, including overlap between controls and the risk that remains.

• Comparable business cases — for the options you are actually considering.
• The additional risk reduction — beyond your current controls, without counting the same contribution twice.
• Decision thresholds — when would different costs or assumptions make another option more attractive?

Threat information becomes actionable when connected to your own environment. Accounts, permissions, systems and business processes are mapped into specific attack paths, including the conditions an attacker would need.

• Attack paths to critical processes — including routes through suppliers or shared accounts.
• Intervention points along each path — where access restrictions, detection or other controls could make a difference.
• Specific validation questions — to check unconfirmed access paths and assumptions.

A scorecard brings scenario assessments and measurement results together into an overview of cyber resilience. Consistent criteria and a clearly defined scope explain what the score means and which changes can be compared.

• Results for each attack scenario — with gaps and missing evidence shown separately.
• Comparable follow-up measurements — separating improvement and deterioration from changes in assessment scope.
• Evidence behind the score — so your team can identify the findings that need attention.

For selected controls, we define which attacks they should prevent, detect or limit, then measure how they perform. Configurations, security data and test results provide the evidence for the assessment.

• An assessment of each control — distinguishing demonstrated weaknesses from missing evidence.
• Visibility of weak links — such as rapid detection followed by a response that comes too late.
• Criteria for repeat measurements — so you can establish whether changes have had an effect.

Targeted attack tests reveal what happens in practice. Avant Cyber conducts the tests or works with your team, using agreed scenarios, relevant variations and assessment criteria.

• A test matrix with observations — showing what is blocked, detected and acted upon.
• Differences between test variations — so one successful test is not treated as evidence for every attack path.
• Specific retest criteria — to check whether a change resolves the identified weakness.

From incident to resumed operations, the analysis follows the full recovery sequence. Technical tests, process dependencies and the availability of staff and suppliers are combined into an evidence-based recovery path.

• A business recovery timeline — showing the sequence of steps and what can realistically run in parallel.
• The delays that determine recovery time — explaining why a successful restore does not yet mean operations have resumed.
• Modelled improvement options — to identify which changes bring your recovery objective within reach.

Findings are prioritised using attack opportunities, business impact and feasible actions. The model also connects individual tickets that together create a more serious problem and can be updated as new information becomes available.

• An evidence-based ranking — explaining why one action should come before another.
• Related findings grouped together — so your team can address an attack path rather than isolated tickets.
• Visibility of temporary options — including the issues that remain after an intervention.

What should an indicator measure, which sources does it need and when is the result useful? Existing measurements are assessed against these questions, or a new measurement framework is designed and implemented, from definitions to calculations and source connections.

• Unambiguous measurement definitions — making scope, numerator, denominator and measurement period explicit.
• Connections across sources — revealing systems outside a tool report or exposure before a finding was discovered.
• A repeatable measurement process — with calculations and checks your team can use and maintain.

A risk-focused dashboard is designed around the questions you need to manage. Selected sources are connected and indicators developed, with data presented so you can track and explain changes.

• A working dashboard — with the agreed measurements and access to the underlying data.
• Separate technical and decision status — so a closed ticket or accepted risk is not mistaken for a resolved weakness.
• Visible data quality — with missing or outdated data flagged alongside the relevant measurement.

Individual exports and spreadsheets are replaced by an established reporting process. Source connections, data checks and calculations turn inputs into recurring reports, automated where your systems support it.

• Less recurring collection work — through consistent processing of the connected sources.
• Visible data delivery failures — a missing source does not silently appear as a reduction in security issues.
• Traceable figures and maintenance arrangements — so your team can check and maintain the reports.

Board security reports are structured around the decisions at hand. Technical findings, costs and business consequences are translated into specific options, with supporting evidence suited to management and board discussions.

• A clear decision to make — with options, consequences and required resources set out side by side.
• Progress and remaining risk — so completed projects do not obscure attack opportunities that still exist.
• Traceable supporting evidence — including the main assumptions, uncertainties and sources for follow-up questions.

An independent model review examines assumptions, data sources and calculations against the intended use. It also assesses dependencies and sensitivity to different inputs: a correctly calculated score can still lead to the wrong decision.

• Findings and their consequences — showing which weaknesses materially affect the conclusion.
• Visibility of critical assumptions — such as controls that can fail together because of a shared cause.
• Targeted improvements and validation actions — to make the model better suited to the decisions it supports.