Security

Real offensive depth

Testing and defence led by a published security researcher with five CVEs, including a CVSS 9.1 Mirai botnet kill-switch.

All security →
Compliance

Audit-ready, fixed scope

SOC 2, ISO, CPCSC, and the Canadian privacy stack, run end to end with an independent auditor.

All frameworks →
Resources

Learn the space

Original research, free tools, and plain-language guides on security and compliance, from a published security researcher.

Read the blog →
AI Security · AI/ML

AI Security for AI/ML

If AI is your product, the model layer is your attack surface. We threat-model your LLM, RAG, and agent systems and test them against the OWASP LLM Top 10.

Book a free readiness call Full AI Security service
From $4,000 CAD · ~1 week See full pricing →

Why AI/ML companies need AI Security

  • Prompt injection is the top risk in the OWASP LLM Top 10 and affects nearly every LLM application.
  • RAG systems can leak source data through the model; agents can be manipulated into unintended tool calls.
  • AI companies face emerging governance expectations, such as the EU AI Act, on top of technical security.
  • Enterprise buyers increasingly send AI-specific security questions your standard controls don't answer.

More context on this sector on our AI/ML industry page.

What our AI Security engagement covers

Tailored to AI/ML, delivered by a Toronto security and compliance team led by a published security researcher, with our offensive-security partner where offensive testing is involved.

  • Agent tool-call abuse and memory-poisoning testing
  • Guidance on emerging AI-governance obligations relevant to your product
  • Threat model across LLM, RAG, and agent surfaces
  • Prompt-injection testing (direct, indirect, multi-turn, tool-call abuse) mapped to the OWASP LLM Top 10
  • RAG and data-layer leakage testing
  • Shadow-AI inventory and a prioritized remediation roadmap

See the full AI Security service page, or productized pricing for fixed-scope engagements.

Related pages

AI Security for AI/ML: common questions

What is prompt injection?

An attack where crafted input overrides the model's intended instructions, potentially exfiltrating data or triggering unintended actions. It is the number-one item in the OWASP LLM Top 10.

How is AI security testing different from a normal pentest?

A normal pentest targets infrastructure and app logic; AI security testing targets the model layer, prompts, RAG data flows, and agent behavior. We do both, and co-deliver adversarial testing with our offensive-security partner.

Do we need this if we just use a third-party model?

Yes, the risks live in how your application wires up prompts, data, and tools around the model, not just the model itself.

AI Security for AI/ML, on your timeline

Book a free 30-minute discovery call. We will tell you whether this engagement fits, what it would cost, and when we could start.

Book a call Contact us

The same work, without the line item

Every readiness programme needs a control library, an evidence register, policies and a score for the board. Being quoted five figures a year for that is normal. Paying it is not.

traztech Workspace Other GRC platforms
Licence cost $0. Free forever, no card, no paid tier $7,500 to $50,000 a year, on an annual contract
Control library, evidence register, policy templates, risk register, vendor questionnaires, readiness scoring Included Included
What it costs inside an engagement with us $0. You need a workspace either way Unchanged. The subscription sits on top of the fee
What it does to your audit quote $11,000 off a five-figure quote on one engagement, for a documented readiness position Nothing. The audit firm prices your readiness, not your tooling

Pricing in the right column is what compliance automation platforms are publicly reported to charge; none of them publish a number, so treat it as a range rather than a quote. The $11,000 came off the audit firm's own number once the readiness position was documented (the engagement). Where a paid platform is the better buy, and the fuller comparison, is on the Workspace page.

Track record

Who is actually doing the work

We are deliberately not a large firm, and we would rather show you the work than a wall of logos. Here is what is behind the advice.

5
Published CVEs, including a CVSS 9.1
76
Controls taken from nothing to a passed SOC 2 Type II
Zero
Exceptions on that Type II report
75 days
Readiness window we have hit every time we have run it
20+
Penetration testing engagements delivered

Published vulnerability research

Five published CVEs. CVE-2024-45163 (CVSS 9.1) is a flaw in the Mirai botnet itself, which gave defenders a way to shut down attacker infrastructure. CVE-2026-42626 takes HP ENVY 5000 printers offline from any unauthenticated device on the same network.

The printer is the one that matters on a compliance page: an asset nobody counts as a computer, on a flat network, downed by a device that never had to log in. Auditors ask how controls fail. We have found out first-hand.

A SOC 2 Type II built from nothing

At Humera, a venture-backed US security company, Jacob built the compliance programme in-house from nothing: no report, no policies, no documented controls. It ended in a Type II attestation across 76 controls with zero exceptions, on a team of 15.

The platform held 99.9% uptime throughout, which is the part most readiness projects get wrong: controls are easy to design and hard to retrofit onto a system people already depend on.

Recent engagements

For a Waterloo data centre operator we ran SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001:2022 together rather than one after the other, across a production campus, an AI compute platform and a self-hosted collaboration stack. Scoped so further Ontario and Quebec sites enter as they reach production. Findings delivered and remediated.

For an Ontario medtech company putting an AI clinical assistant in front of practitioners, we ran the gap analysis and built the evidence programme behind their SOC 2.