Compliance Built on Execution, Not Theory
Aegidis helps defense contractors handle NIST 800-171, CMMC, and Zero Trust work from a founder who has personally run these transitions — on classified government networks and inside a Fortune 500 carrier. The same principles apply whether the problem is a compliance gap on a network or an authentication gap on a steel asset. Both come down to the same question: how do you prove what happened, and make that proof stick?
NIST 800-171 Assessments
Control-by-control gap reviews with prioritized remediation planning and real evidence expectations. The assessments come from someone who has run a Cisco ASA to Palo Alto migration, replaced a perimeter with Zscaler, and managed a hybrid MSP transition under compliance scrutiny — so the controls get evaluated against what they actually protect, not what the publication says they protect.
CMMC Readiness Support
Structured readiness work for teams cleaning up internal posture before external assessment pressure arrives. Includes shared-responsibility analysis where managed service providers or cloud infrastructure carry part of the control footprint.
Zero Trust Architecture Design
Architecture and implementation support for organizations adopting Zero Trust — drawing on direct experience replacing legacy proxy, VPN, and perimeter infrastructure with Zscaler ZIA and ZPA at Fortune 500 scale.
Zero Trust Maturity Assessment
Maturity evaluations aligned to the CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model and NIST SP 800-207. Identifies the gap between claimed ZT posture and the underlying controls that would survive an auditor or federal reviewer's scrutiny.
Third-Party Risk & Shared Responsibility
Analysis of managed service and cloud arrangements where control execution sits with a provider but compliance accountability stays with you. Grounded in direct experience managing the security boundary of a hybrid managed-service transition at a Fortune 500 carrier.
Engineering-Aware Security
Security recommendations written for how systems actually run. Change windows matter. Operational technology has constraints that paper policy ignores. The goal is controls that engineers can implement without breaking what they built — not a compliance checklist handed off and forgotten.
- Defense contractors preparing for NIST 800-171 or CMMC assessment pressure.
- Suppliers handling engineering data, technical drawings, or CUI-adjacent workflows where policy must align with manufacturing and operational reality.
- Organizations whose Zero Trust claims need to survive an external maturity evaluation against CISA ZTMM or NIST SP 800-207.
- Programs where cyber decisions must align with how equipment, factories, or operational technology systems actually run.
- Buyers who need direct technical access rather than policy-only consulting from a junior delivery layer.
Assessment First
Start with a scoped gap review to determine whether the right next move is remediation planning, architecture support, or a maturity assessment against a specific framework. Scoping is a real conversation, not a form.
Prioritized Remediation
Turn findings into a practical sequence tied to staffing, budget, and operational constraints — rather than a compliance shopping list disconnected from how the organization actually functions.
Direct Leadership Access
Work directly with founder-led technical leadership for scoping, tradeoffs, and decision support through delivery. The person who assessed is the person who remediates.
Direct access to founder-led technical leadership for NIST 800-171 assessments, CMMC readiness, Zero Trust architecture, and maturity evaluations.