Physical Social Engineering Assessment
A Physical Social Engineering Assessment evaluates the vulnerability of your staff and physical premises to social engineering tactics, combining physical penetration testing and employee response assessments.
In scope
- Physical entry attempts
- Employee interaction tests
- Tailgating assessments
- Badge cloning tests
- Physical security culture evaluation
You receive
- Physical Social Engineering Report
- Incident findings
- Training recommendations
Tiers
Choose the depth.
Basic Physical SE Assessment
$15K
On-site testing at one facility during business hours, with a findings report.
- Sites
- 1
- One facility
- Business-hours testing
- Findings report and debrief
- — After-hours testing
- — More than one facility
Advanced Physical SE Assessment
$35K
On-site testing at up to 3 facilities, including after-hours testing at one of them.
- Sites
- 3
- Up to three facilities
- After-hours testing at one facility
- Executive debrief
- — More than three facilities — scoped
Members: engagement coupons from the CISO Marketplace coupon book apply to services. There is no blanket discount.
What's inside this engagement
Phase by phase.
How a social engineering & physical engagement runs, what happens in each phase and what you see. Exact scope, tier and timeline are fixed in your proposal and SOW.
01Scoping & authorization
Targets, pretexts, sites and legal authorization letters agreed before anything is sent or attempted.
You see · Signed authorization and approved pretexts.
02OSINT & pretext design
Public information on staff and sites is used to build believable pretexts.
You see · Approval of the pretexts.
03Campaign / on-site execution
Phishing, vishing or physical entry attempts, run to the agreed plan and stopped on request.
You see · Real-time escalation if anything goes wrong.
04Reporting & awareness debrief
What worked, who reported it, and the controls that failed, without naming and shaming individuals.
You see · Metrics and a training plan.
Commercials
From first call to final report.
- 01
Scoping call
A practitioner, not a salesperson, walks through targets, constraints and what a good outcome looks like for you.
- 02
Proposal & rules of engagement
A fixed-scope proposal with tier, price and deliverables. Rules of engagement, contacts and out-of-bounds systems are agreed in writing.
- 03
Sign, then start
MSA and SOW are signed electronically and the deposit is paid. Only then does testing begin.
- 04
Execution
Testing runs to the agreed plan. Critical findings are escalated as they are found; you don't wait for the report.
- 05
Report & debrief
An executive summary plus technical findings with evidence, reproduction steps and fixes, walked through with your team.
- 06
Retest
Where the tier includes it, we verify your fixes and reissue the report, so auditors and customers see the issues closed.
Timelines are set per engagement in the SOW.
Related
Red Team Subscription
A standing offensive testing program in place of a once-a-year engagement. Each month our team runs a targeted assessment against an agreed part of your environment; each quarter a scenario-based attack tests how well your people and tooling detect and respond. The Premium tier adds two full red team engagements a year. Findings from every cycle feed one running improvement plan, so each round also checks whether the last round's fixes held. Targets, rules of engagement and testing windows are agreed at kickoff.
AI & Agentic Red Team
Offensive testing of LLMs and AI agents — prompt injection, jailbreaks, tool misuse, agent goal hijack, memory/context poisoning, model extraction, and agent identity abuse. Mapped to OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications, OWASP LLM Top 10, and MITRE ATLAS.
AI/ML Security Assessment
Expert evaluation of artificial intelligence and machine learning systems security, from model development to deployment. Our assessment identifies vulnerabilities in AI/ML infrastructure, examines risks of data poisoning, adversarial attacks, and model manipulation while providing guidance for securing these advanced technologies.
Research
Latest from the blog
incident-response · Sep 22, 2026
The Revolut Breach Is a Case Study in Confusing Authentication With Authorization
Revolut disclosed customer data to attackers who spoofed a government agency's email domain for five months. The root cause was not weak email security but a workflow that treated a valid domain as proof of a valid request.
ai-security · Sep 5, 2026
Excessive Agency Moved to #3: What the 2026 OWASP LLM Top 10 and the Agent Control Standard Change For Your Program
The OWASP GenAI Security Project's 2026 list weighted 6,639 real incidents against expert consensus, and the largest movement on it was Excessive Agency climbing from #6 to #3. Alongside it shipped the Agent Control Standard v0.1, which defines agent governance through OpenTelemetry and OCSF tracing. The ranking is a lagging indicator finally catching up to what is actually breaking.
threat-intelligence · Sep 1, 2026
The Coding Agent Is the Intrusion Tool: Aurora Ransomware, Cursor, and the End of "AI Writes Malware" as the Threat Model
Between April and May 2026, an Aurora ransomware affiliate did not ask an AI to write malware. It pointed a commercial coding agent at live victim networks and had it perform reconnaissance, credential theft, and Active Directory escalation against at least ten organizations — roughly 30-50% faster than the same operator working alone. The safety bypass was one word: "test."
Start an engagement