- Dependencies, package sources, build identities, registries, or release artifacts are becoming harder to trust end to end.
- Customers or regulatory expectations are increasing pressure around SBOMs, provenance, signing, or third-party components.
- The company wants to strengthen build and release trust without adding controls that engineering cannot maintain.
Service 07
Software Supply Chain Security
Assess the software factory: dependencies, build identities, package sources, SBOM practices, signing, provenance, registries, artifacts, and release trust.
Lean-team friendlyRemote-first · worldwideFrom $4,500
Supply ChainSBOMSCASigning
Starting priceFrom $4,500
Indicative USD baseline for a clearly bounded scope.
Typical delivery1–3 weeks
Calendar timing depends on access, evidence, target size, and stakeholder availability.
Commercial modelFixed scope
Scope, assumptions, deliverables, timeline, and price are confirmed before delivery begins.
Baseline scopeA focused build/release trust path covering dependencies, SBOM, signing, provenance, registries, and artifact integrity.
No surprise hourly overages on agreed packaged work. If the scope changes materially, additional work is agreed in writing before it starts.
When this service fits
Recognize the decision before choosing the scope.
01
Where can trust break between source, dependency, build, artifact, registry, and release?
02
What level of SBOM, signing, provenance, and dependency governance is appropriate for this product?
What we review
Focused on the controls that change real product risk.
The exact evidence set is tailored during discovery. A typical engagement covers the areas below.
- Dependency governance and SCA coverage
- SBOM strategy and inventory quality
- Package, registry, and third-party component controls
- Build identities, runners, secrets, and source integrity
- Artifact signing, attestations, and provenance
- Release evidence, exceptions, and vulnerability response
Deliverables
A decision package — not a scanner export.
Recommendations are prioritized, contextualized, and structured so engineering and leadership can move from findings to action.
Supply-chain risk map
Included or adapted to the agreed engagement scope.
SBOM and dependency readiness assessment
Included or adapted to the agreed engagement scope.
Build and artifact trust review
Included or adapted to the agreed engagement scope.
Control gaps and prioritized improvements
Included or adapted to the agreed engagement scope.
Release integrity blueprint
Included or adapted to the agreed engagement scope.
Operational recommendations for ongoing governance
Included or adapted to the agreed engagement scope.
“The focus is the chain of trust behind the product — not only the final artifact.”Engagement principle
Engagement shape
Clear scope. Evidence. Priorities. Remediation.
01Discover
Goals, environment, constraints, evidence, and success criteria.
02Review
Technical and process assessment with targeted automation where useful.
03Prioritize
Risk, attack paths, engineering effort, and business context.
04Enable
Report, roadmap, workshop, and optional remediation validation.
Typical engagement: 1–3 weeks.
Client side of the engagement
Know what changes, what is needed, and what can follow.
What changes after
- The software factory has a clearer chain-of-trust model and prioritized control gaps.
- SBOM and dependency practices are tied to real response and release decisions rather than document production alone.
What we need from you
- Representative repositories, build definitions, dependency tooling, package sources, registries, and release flow.
- Current SBOM, signing, provenance, artifact, or third-party component practices where they exist.
Natural next steps
Related
Build a broader engagement.
01
Product Security Program Assessment
Know where your Product Security program stands — and what to improve first.
02Secure SDLC Assessment
Build security into the way software moves from idea to production.
03Secure Architecture & Threat Modeling
Find architectural risk before it becomes production vulnerability.
Discuss this service
Start a conversation →Bring the architecture, problem, or current security backlog.
We can define the smallest useful scope and a clear output before work begins.