Inspect the fabric. Verify the fix.
Evidence-based cyber inspection, independent verification and validation (IV&V), and security-tool analysis of alternatives across the federal government’s most sensitive environments.
Cyber Inspection & IV&V
Pueo inspects the way the mission is actually run. Built on Pueo’s ISRM2 methodology, an inspection starts with the mission-essential tasks, traces them to the systems and dependencies that carry them, and reports what a finding means to the mission rather than what a scanner scored it. The model replaced legacy checklist audits and is proven across more than 100 defense and intelligence elements.
The work is evidence-first. Inspectors validate controls against the running configuration, collect the artifacts behind every claim, and independently verify remediation before a finding is treated as closed. Where a security tool is the question, Pueo runs a structured analysis of alternatives: requirements drawn from the architecture and the threat, hands-on evaluation in a representative enclave, and a recommendation that carries the coverage, cost, and operational-burden trade.
It holds up because it is independent and it is traceable. Findings are written at engineering grade, each one anchored to evidence a reviewer can pull, produced by a team that did not build the system it is inspecting. Pueo has run this model on TS/SCI fabrics across successive inspection cycles, and the same team stays with the finding until the fix is verified.
What’s Inside
Mission-risk inspection
Inspection under ISRM2: mission-essential tasks mapped to the systems and dependencies that carry them, then findings ranked by mission impact instead of raw severity.
Independent verification and validation
An independent test of whether a control, a delivered capability, or a claimed fix performs as stated. Closed findings are retested before Pueo agrees they are closed.
Security-tool analysis of alternatives
Requirements built from the architecture and the threat, candidate tools evaluated hands-on in a representative enclave, and a recommendation that shows the coverage and operational cost of each option.
Evidence and reporting
Evidence packages, engineering-grade finding write-ups, and reporting structured to survive independent review and reuse in the authorization record.
Findings tracked to closure
Every finding carries an owner, a path to remediation, and a retest, with clean handoff to the engineering and operations teams that will make the change.
Outcomes
- Findings a leader can act on, ranked by mission impact rather than scanner severity.
- Claimed fixes independently verified before a finding is closed.
- Security-tool decisions made on measured coverage instead of vendor claims.
- Inspection results traceable to evidence and durable under independent review.
- One accountable team from finding to verified fix.
Speak with an Expert
The hardest networks are the ones Pueo was built for. Tell us what you have to protect.
Contact