Majority disabled veteran-owned
Find the weaknesses between your networks, applications, and physical spaces. Kyber is building a professional cybersecurity and penetration-testing practice for organizations that need clear answers—not another tool to manage. Start with a digital assessment scope inquiry.
Human-led engagements. Written authorization. Findings you can act on.
Digital assessment scope inquiries open.
Physical and combined services are proposed, not available for scheduling.
Protecting American organizations starts with understanding what puts them at risk.
Meet KyberThe threat landscape / Why test now
Security is not just a question of technology. People, access decisions, and physical spaces belong in the same conversation. The useful question is where your own controls need closer examination.
Technical exposure
≈334Calculated daily average · July 2026
Per organization in Check Point’s observed dataset
The published average was 2,336 per week in July 2026. Testing turns broad threat pressure into a focused review of your own exposure.
Social engineering / Phishing
≈14,194Calculated daily average · June 2026
Across APWG’s reporting network
APWG recorded 425,808 unique phishing sites in June 2026. Deceptive sites are one way attackers exploit trust—not just software weaknesses.
From numbers to decisions
You need to know what is exposed, which controls deserve scrutiny, and what to fix first.
Start with a defined digital assessment: agreed boundaries, evidence-led findings, and practical remediation priorities.
Discuss your exposureHistorical averages, not a live counter. These different datasets are not directly comparable. They describe observed attacks and reported sites—not successful breaches. Phishing is a form of social engineering, not a count of every social-engineering attack.
[30] Cyber attacks: Check Point Research’s July 2026 report gives 2,336 weekly cyber attacks per organization in its observed dataset. Dividing by seven gives 333.71, rounded to approximately 334 per day. This is a weekly-average conversion, not a daily count or a representative forecast for every business. The article does not state the sample size or a complete event-counting methodology.
[41] Phishing: APWG’s Q2 2026 report, pages 2–3 (PDF), published August 28, 2026, records 425,808 unique reported phishing sites in June. Dividing by June’s 30 days gives 14,193.6, rounded to approximately 14,194 per day. APWG calls these sites “attacks”; one site can support many URLs or messages. Reports come from member companies, research partners, and the public—not a census of all phishing, all social engineering, or successful victims.
The figures cover different populations and periods, may overlap, and are not added together. They are external industry context, not Kyber customer results or a guarantee that testing prevents every incident. Source review: .
Industry context starts the conversation. Your scope makes it useful. An assessment examines your agreed environment—not a prediction that you will suffer an attack.
Turn the question into a scopeWhat we assess
Start with the question your team needs answered. We define the right engagement around your environment, authority, and operational constraints.
01 / Digital
Network and web application assessments examine exposure, configuration, and access controls. Scoped penetration testing adds controlled manual validation where authorized.
02 / Physical
A proposed service for reviewing how facilities and procedures protect sensitive spaces. No field work is currently offered or scheduled.
03 / Combined
Our proposed combined service would connect physical and digital assessment objectives after the field-work readiness gates are met.
An assessment is not automatically a full penetration test. We name the depth, methods, exclusions, and limits in your proposal. Raw scanner output is not a finished pentest.
The engagement process
Testing should answer a security question without creating unnecessary risk. Your agreed scope sets the boundary—not an open-ended promise to attack everything.
Confirm ownership, written authorization, in-scope systems and sites, third-party permissions, exclusions, and capability fit. Agree on rules of engagement before testing.
Set testing windows, emergency contacts, stop conditions, and evidence-handling rules. Validate findings within the approved methods; pause and escalate if safety or scope is in question.
Separate confirmed findings from observations and untested areas. Connect evidence to likely impact, limitations, and practical remediation priorities.
Walk through the report with your team. Define remediation support and the retest scope, window, and fee in the proposal; record what was fixed, remains open, or could not be verified.
Physical testing and full adversary simulation are proposed services and are not available for scheduling. Destructive activity, service disruption, and testing of unrelated third parties are not assumed to be in scope.
What you take away
Deliverables are agreed before the engagement. The goal is a defensible view of what was tested, what was found, and what deserves attention next.
See the reporting scopeScope-driven pricing
Pricing depends on assets, sites, testing depth, access, travel, reporting, and retest needs. No security-service subscription or checkout is required to start the conversation.
A combined engagement can reduce duplicated scoping, reporting, or travel. Any savings depend on the same agreed scope and logistics—not a guaranteed discount.
How we scope a quoteTalk with Harley & Alex
Tell us about your organization, the type of assessment, and your timing. Keep credentials, sensitive records, and detailed vulnerabilities out of the first email.
Prefer a starting checklist? See what to include.
