Backup documentation is not disaster recovery. We test whether your recovery plan actually works — backup integrity, recovery time objectives, and failover procedures, validated under realistic conditions.
Many organizations can point to a backup policy and a disaster recovery document, but haven't tested whether recovery actually works under realistic failure conditions. The gap between "documented" and "tested" is exactly where DR plans fail when they're needed.
Scoped to your risk tolerance: a tabletop exercise and runbook review at minimum, up to a fully controlled live failover test where that's appropriate. Either way, the result is a measured, evidence-backed answer — not an assumption.
A backup audit confirms backups exist and run on schedule. This assessment tests whether recovery actually works — restoring from backup under realistic failure conditions and measuring the result against your stated recovery objectives.
Depends on scope and risk tolerance — some engagements run a live, controlled failover; others start with a tabletop exercise and runbook validation. We scope the right level of realism with you, not impose one by default.
Business continuity and disaster recovery assessed together: not just 'can we restore data' but 'can the business keep operating' — recovery runbooks, SOPs, and dependency mapping, not backups in isolation.
Yes, on request — ransomware recovery readiness (isolated/immutable backup validation, realistic restore timing under that specific threat model) is a common and increasingly requested scope addition.
A gap analysis against your stated recovery objectives, tested and remediated runbooks, and a validation report documenting what was actually tested and what the measured recovery time was.
Yes — engagements are scoped explicitly around your risk tolerance, from non-disruptive tabletop/runbook review up to a fully isolated failover test.
Tell us your current DR posture and what you need validated. We'll scope a realistic assessment.