Security reports

Security reports for cloud and on-premise environments.

A configuration and exposure review, written up with findings in priority order and a hardening plan you can hand to a team.

Line drawing: the top of a printed findings page on a desk, with a pen beside it.
A line drawing stands in for a photograph: the first page of a findings report on a desk.

What you get

A report is

Plain words, evidence beside each finding, and an order to do things in.

  • A review of configuration and exposure against an agreed scope: accounts, identities, networks, storage, endpoints and the patch state of the operating systems.
  • Written findings in priority order, each with the evidence we saw and the fix we recommend.
  • A hardening plan with the effort and the order, so a team can start on Monday.
  • A follow-up check if you want one, to confirm what was fixed.

How we work

Three habits, the same for every job

  1. Step 1: Scope in writing

    A short call, then a one-page scope: what we will deliver, what we will not, the price and the date.

  2. Step 2: Work you can see

    Drafts, test builds or the plan as it forms. Questions go to one address and get answered.

  3. Step 3: Hand over everything

    Files, source, access and a written summary. Nothing you would need later stays with us.

Who does the work

Operations experience behind every job

Coop Security is run by Jacob, whose background is managed cloud operations: a private cloud of 40 customers and about 350 virtual machines, Microsoft public-cloud services delivered to resellers and their customers, and security reporting on Azure tenants as a service.

Security reporting as a service came from the same seat: Microsoft Defender for Cloud reports across tenants, Azure security assessments for resellers’ customers, and the patch and firewall state of a 350-machine private cloud. Findings are written the way a service desk wants them: what we saw, where, why it matters, what to change and in what order.

Certified on AWS (Solutions Architect Associate, 2022; AI specialty, 2026) and Azure (Administrator Associate, 2024). Based in Canberra; work is done remotely or on site in the ACT and surrounding NSW.

Background and history: LinkedIn · code: GitHub.

What a finding looks like

Two sample findings

Composed for this page to show the shape of a report: not from any client, with placeholder identifiers. A real report has eight to twenty of these, in priority order, followed by the hardening plan.

  1. Line drawing: a server with a warning label, a calendar page and a patch note.
    Line drawing standing in for the report's screenshot, which is redacted in any sample.
    F-01 Critical Sample

    Critical operating-system update outstanding on internet-facing servers

    Where
    3 of 12 Windows Server hosts in the DMZ subnet (web01, web02, rds-gw01).
    What we saw
    The latest cumulative update is 94 days old on these hosts; the vendor advisory for it carries a remote code execution fix rated CVSS 9.8. Update rings exist but the DMZ ring was paused in July and never resumed.
    Reference
    CVE-2026-00000 (placeholder; the report names the vendor advisory and the CVE as published).
    Why it matters
    The hosts accept connections from the internet on 443 and 3389 (through the gateway). An unpatched remote code execution flaw on a reachable host is the finding we would fix first.
    Fix
    Resume the DMZ update ring, install the cumulative update in the next maintenance window with a snapshot taken first, reboot, and confirm the build number. Then set an alert for any host more than 30 days behind.
    Order and effort
    Order 1 of 9. Half a day, plus the maintenance window.
  2. Line drawing: a sign-in dialog, a key and a shield, with one padlock open.
    Line drawing standing in for the report's screenshot, which is redacted in any sample.
    F-02 High Sample

    Entra ID: legacy authentication allowed and no location conditions on sign-in

    Where
    The Entra ID tenant: Conditional Access, named locations, the sign-in logs and the privileged roles.
    What we saw
    No Conditional Access policy blocks legacy authentication; the sign-in log shows basic-auth IMAP sign-ins in the last 30 days. No named locations are defined, so nothing limits sign-ins to the office and VPN addresses or to the countries staff work from, and the log shows successful user sign-ins from three countries where the organisation has no one. Four accounts hold Global Administrator permanently rather than through Privileged Identity Management.
    Reference
    Microsoft Entra Conditional Access (named locations, blocking legacy authentication), Microsoft’s mandatory MFA for the admin portals, Privileged Identity Management; the report cites the controls by name.
    Why it matters
    Microsoft now enforces MFA for the admin portals, so administrator MFA is not the gap. What stays open is the user sign-in surface: legacy protocols cannot complete MFA, so a reused password is enough to read mail, and without location conditions a stolen password works from anywhere in the world. Standing Global Administrators are still the accounts an attacker wants.
    Fix
    Create a Conditional Access policy that blocks legacy authentication, run it in report-only mode for a week, then enforce it. Define named locations for the office and VPN ranges and the countries staff work from, and block or step up sign-ins from outside them, with the break-glass accounts excluded. Reduce standing Global Administrators to two break-glass accounts and move the rest to eligible assignments in Privileged Identity Management.
    Order and effort
    Order 2 of 9. One to two days, spread over the report-only week.

Engagement sizes

Three ways to engage

Each is priced in the scope, with the date beside it.

  1. Cloud account review

    Fixed price per account. Configuration and exposure of an AWS or Azure account and its Entra ID tenant, with the report in priority order.

  2. On-premise review

    Scoped per site. Servers, networks and devices on your own premises, with the scope agreed first.

  3. Annual re-check

    Fixed price. The same review a year on, against the last report, with what changed and what is still open.

Every price is written into the one-page scope before work starts, GST stated. We say no when we are full.

Questions

Before you ask

Anything else: [email protected]

Will you test our systems from the outside?

Only if the scope says so, in writing, with the dates and the addresses agreed. A standard review reads configuration and exposure; it does not attack anything.

Who sees the report?

You, and whoever you name. We keep one copy for the follow-up check and delete it when you ask. Nothing is shared or used as a reference without your written permission.

Are the sample findings real?

No. They are composed for this page to show the shape of a finding, with placeholder identifiers. Real findings cite the vendor advisory, the CVE and the control by name, with the evidence redacted in any copy that leaves your organisation.

Can you fix what you find?

Yes, as a separate scope, or your team works from the hardening plan. Either way the report stands on its own.

Tell us what you need

We reply within [two working days] with questions or a one-page scope.