Enterprises today aren't short on security tooling. They're short on AI-specific visibility. AI arrives through business units, browser extensions, and personal accounts long before it ever reaches a review board, and that gap is where risk accumulates.
AZIMUTH is LTI Global's answer: a single, continuous AI lifecycle program, not a stack of disconnected projects. We help you discover the AI already running in your environment, prove whether it holds up under real attack conditions, deploy it safely with guardrails in place, and defend and evolve it as your business and the threat landscape change.
Built for environments where AI failure has physical consequences.
Restricting AI without offering a sanctioned alternative drives usage into channels you cannot see. The workable path is governed enablement: discover comprehensively, sanction a safe route, enforce it at the inference boundary, and keep testing that it holds. That is an ongoing program, not a one-time control.
AZIMUTH runs the full AI lifecycle as one continuous program, from "should we?" through "is it still safe?" You can engage LTI Global at any stage, depending on where your organization stands today.
A questionnaire-led, evidence-based engagement that establishes whether your organization can adopt AI safely, and what has to change first. Asynchronous by design: no interview marathon, and one 60-minute validation session. The assessment is delivered fully remotely. Typical window is three to five weeks from questionnaire issuance to final report, depending on package and evidence turnaround.
HOW THE ENGAGEMENT RUNS
Step
Activity
What happens
1
Questionnaire issued
LTI Global issues the readiness questionnaire, use-case inventory, tool and vendor inventory, evidence request list, and any optional module questionnaires.
2
Client completes
Your team completes the forms and identifies evidence references. No live interviews are required at this stage.
3
Evidence review
We review policies, inventories, screenshots, diagrams, configuration summaries, vendor artifacts, and training records.
4
Analysis and scoring
Responses are mapped to readiness domains, scored against the maturity model, and converted into risk ratings and priority findings.
5
Validation session
One 60-minute remote session validates material findings, clarifies gaps, and aligns on the roadmap.
6
Final report
Scorecard, heatmap, inventories, control gaps, recommended baseline, and the 90-day roadmap.
SCORING MODEL
Readiness is expressed on a 0 to 100 overall scale, derived from per-response maturity scores weighted by domain. It is a defensible, repeatable measurement, not a compliance score. Scores are assigned against submitted evidence, not stated policy.
08 AI Security Risk. Prompt injection, data leakage, model misuse, plugin risk, and jailbreak resilience.
09 Operations, Monitoring and Incident Response. AI usage monitoring, SOC visibility, escalation paths, AI-specific incident playbooks.
Optional
10 Microsoft 365 Copilot and Enterprise Search Readiness. Where Copilot or an equivalent enterprise search over corporate content is deployed or planned.
11 RAG and Custom LLM Application Readiness. Where chatbots, retrieval-augmented generation, autonomous agents, plugins, or API-consuming LLM applications are in use.
12 SOC and Security Operations AI Readiness. Where AI is used in detection, alert triage, threat hunting, or incident response workflows.
WHAT YOU RECEIVE
AI Readiness Scorecard. Domain-level and overall maturity score on the 0 to 4 scale with the weighted readiness model.
AI Risk Heatmap. Prioritized view of business, data, cybersecurity, legal and privacy, vendor, and operational risks.
AI Use-Case Inventory. Structured inventory of current, planned, experimental, and production AI use cases.
AI Tool and Vendor Inventory. Approved, unapproved, shadow, free, paid, and enterprise AI tools with data-sharing and review status.
Governance Gap Summary. AI ownership, policy, approval workflow, risk acceptance, and risk-register gaps.
Security Control Baseline. Recommended minimum controls for SSO, MFA, RBAC, logging, DLP, browser extensions, API keys, prompt handling, and AI incident response.
90-Day Roadmap. Prioritized actions grouped into quick wins, control hardening, governance actions, technical backlog, and executive decision points.
Executive and Technical Report. A single final report suitable for board and C-level review as well as internal technical follow-up.
THREE PACKAGES
Questionnaire Review
Standard Assessment
Deep Assessment
Purpose
Fast triage of self-reported readiness posture.
Full baseline assessment using questionnaire responses plus selected evidence review.
Expanded assessment for higher-risk environments with deeper technical artifact review.
Best fit
Small organizations, early exploration, budget triage.
Most SMB, mid-market, and non-regulated enterprise assessments.
Regulated, enterprise, Copilot, RAG/LLM, SOC-AI, or executive governance programs.
Evidence depth
Referenced but not deeply validated.
Moderate. Selected policies, screenshots, and inventories reviewed.
High. Technical and governance artifacts reviewed in detail.
Validation session
Not included by default.
One 60-minute remote session included.
One 60-minute session included; executive sessions available as add-ons.
Report depth
Short readiness memo plus a 30/60/90-day action list.
Full report: scorecard, heatmap, inventories, domain findings, 90-day roadmap.
Expanded report plus threat model, governance operating model, and focus-area deep dives.
Standard Assessment is the recommended default for most organizations. Questionnaire Review is available where a faster triage or a narrower scope is needed.
WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED
Each of the following is available as a separately scoped engagement.
Legal opinion or certification. Readiness guidance only. Legal interpretation is the responsibility of your counsel.
Hands-on implementation. Policy, control, DLP, SIEM, IAM, Copilot, or RAG changes are not implemented unless separately contracted.
Live technical testing. No penetration testing, red-team testing, or exploit validation. That is Stage 2.
Formal privacy impact assessment. Privacy readiness questions are included, but formal PIAs are not delivered under this scope.
Formal audit or attestation. This service is not an audit and does not provide attestation.
Forensic incident response. Incident investigation, containment, remediation, and legal-hold support are out of scope.
EU AI Act mapping. Not included in the US-focused baseline. Available as a separate scope where required.
WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU
A primary point of contact with authority to coordinate responses, collect evidence, and confirm findings.
Completed questionnaires within the agreed assessment window.
Requested evidence through an approved secure channel.
The right attendees for the 60-minute validation session.
Confirmation of applicable regulatory scope at kickoff so sectoral privacy triage is correctly targeted.
Data handling. Client-provided evidence is handled under LTI Global’s standard confidentiality obligations. Client-specific engagement data is returned or destroyed within 30 days of final report acceptance unless a longer retention period is agreed in writing.
Authorized adversarial testing against your live AI estate. Where the readiness assessment asks what is documented, this stage proves what actually holds. Every attempt is logged with its true response status, so block rate is measured on the wire rather than self-reported. A refused request is a measured defensive success, not a failed test.
SIX WORKSTREAMS
Workstream
The question it answers
Primary evidence
External exposure
What can an adversary see and reach without touching us?
OSINT collection log, endpoint fingerprints
AI estate discovery
What AI is running here, sanctioned or otherwise?
Identity, DNS, endpoint and network telemetry
Supply-chain integrity
Can we trust the models and packages we load?
Artifact scans, provenance records, AI bill of materials
Adversarial testing
Do the runtime controls hold against a real attack corpus?
Per-attempt request log with true response status
Agentic security
Can an agent be induced to act outside its mandate?
Tool-call audit trail, privilege matrix
Detection and response
Does an attack produce an alert someone acts on?
Alert correlation, coverage-gap analysis
HOW FINDINGS ARE RATED
Findings carry a severity, which is the impact if exploited, and an exploitability rating, which is the effort and access required. Severity drives the remediation phase; exploitability breaks ties within a phase.
Severity
Definition
Expected response
Critical
Directly exploitable, leading to code execution, loss of regulated data, or unauthenticated access to a model or its data.
Contain immediately; remediate within 14 days
High
Exploitable with modest effort, or a control failure that materially raises the likelihood of a critical outcome.
Remediate within 30 days
Medium
Exploitable under specific conditions, or a weakness that assists an attacker without being sufficient alone.
Remediate within 90 days
Low
Limited impact; hygiene or defence-in-depth improvement.
Address in normal work planning
Info
No direct risk; recorded for completeness or as context for another finding.
No action required
Posture grades, assigned per domain against observed evidence
A. Controls are present, correctly calibrated, and demonstrated effective against the agreed corpus.
B. Controls are effective with narrow, identified gaps that do not admit a critical outcome.
C. Controls are present but calibrated too loosely, or coverage is materially incomplete.
D. Controls are partial or advisory; a motivated adversary succeeds without novel technique.
F. No effective control in this domain.
REMEDIATION IS SEQUENCED, NOT LISTED
Work is ordered so the highest-risk, lowest-effort fixes land first. Each step names the action, the owner, the effort, and how LTI verifies closure at retest. Verification is stated as an observable outcome, not a change ticket.
Phase 1, Contain, 0 to 14 days. Close externally reachable exposures and revoke the credentials and grants identified during discovery. These require no change to production application logic.
Phase 2, Harden, 15 to 90 days. Recalibrate runtime controls to the tuned thresholds produced during the engagement, and gate model loading on provenance and artifact scanning.
Phase 3, Institutionalize, beyond 90 days. Move AI discovery, adversarial testing, and threshold tuning onto a standing cadence with a named owner and a board-visible metric.
ONGOING ASSURANCE METRICS
The engagement hands over a measurement set so coverage becomes a trend line rather than a one-off snapshot.
Block rate. Share of the standing attack corpus refused at the enforcement point.
Unsanctioned footprint. Applications holding live grants outside the sanctioned set.
Provenance coverage. Share of loaded artifacts carrying a verified signature.
Alert conversion. Share of successful attempts producing an actionable alert.
Mean time to revoke. Elapsed time from detection of an exposed credential to revocation.
Review backlog. Applications awaiting a sanction decision.
HOW WE TEST, AND WHAT WE WILL NOT DO
Written authorization is required before testing begins, covering a named asset list agreed in the statement of work. Anything not listed is out of scope and is not touched.
Destructive testing, denial of service, social engineering, and physical access are excluded unless separately authorized in writing.
External reconnaissance is non-intrusive. Services are fingerprinted, not queried for data, and any discovered credential is validated by a metadata call only, never used.
Adversarial testing runs in an isolated lane with no route to production data stores.
Your security team holds the source addresses and an escalation contact throughout the testing window.
EVIDENCE HANDLING
Classification. Every artifact carries a handling marking, and reports are issued under an agreed traffic-light protocol classification.
Chain of custody. Collection time, source, collector, and handler are recorded for each item of evidence.
Access control. Evidence is compartmented; access is limited to named engagement personnel.
Review and sign-off. Findings are reviewed by a second qualified assessor before issue.
Review and sign-off. Findings are reviewed by a second qualified assessor before issue.
Correction and dispute. If you believe a finding is inaccurate or a severity is misjudged, raise it with the lead assessor; accepted corrections are reissued and logged in document control.
Limitations. An exposure assessment is a point-in-time view of the agreed assets, based on supplied telemetry and conditions observed during the testing window. Absence of a finding is not proof of absence of a weakness.
We deploy a governed AI platform as your organization's sanctioned route to AI: multi-model access for your workforce, with data protection and observability wrapped around every interaction.
THE DATA PROTECTION ENGINE
Detect. PII, PHI, PCI, intellectual property, and terms unique to your organization, identified before submission.
The platform layer carries HIPAA compliance and SOC 2 Type 1 and Type 2 attestations, with ISO 27001 and HITRUST in progress. These are attestations held by the platform provider, not by LTI Global. Platform capabilities are subject to change, and platform selection is confirmed during Stage 1.
WHERE LTI GLOBAL ADDS VALUE
A platform license does not change behavior. The surrounding program does, and that is the part no vendor sells you. These services are model- and vendor-agnostic, and they survive a platform change.
Operational requirements gathering. Workshops that turn "we want AI" into named use cases, data classes, and the controls each one needs.
Documentation. Architecture, data-flow, policy, and control documentation you can hand to an auditor or regulator.
Implementation project management. Named PM, milestone plan, vendor coordination, and a defined go-live gate.
User training and adoption. Role-based enablement, so sanctioned tooling is genuinely easier than the shadow alternative.
Governance policy creation. AI usage policy, approval workflow, risk acceptance, and register, wired into the enforcement point rather than just published.
Integration and tuning. IdP, SIEM, and DLP integration, threshold calibration, and validation that policy behaves as written.
Continuous detection and response across every AI surface, delivered by the LTI Global managed services practice on a platform purpose-built for attacking and defending AI systems. This is the standing layer of the program once it is live.
OFFENSIVE: FIND IT BEFORE THEY DO
Adversarial testing. Continuous testing across LLM, machine learning, agentic, and supply-chain attack surfaces.
Attack surface mapping. Passive, OSINT-based mapping of your externally visible AI footprint.
Red and blue exercises. Joint exercises with detection-closure validation and threat-coverage mapping, so a gap found is a gap closed and verified.
Threat actor emulation. AI-enabled adversary emulation against your production controls.
DEFENSIVE: HOLD THE LINE, CONTINUOUSLY
Adversarial input protection. Detection and blocking of prompt-level attacks at the inference boundary.
Model integrity. Model-poisoning defence and protection against unauthorized access to models and their data.
Shadow AI discovery. Continuous identification of AI reaching corporate data outside the sanctioned path.
Agentic security. Monitoring of tool invocation, privilege scope, and action chains for agents in production.
Left-shift controls. Preventive measures embedded before deployment rather than bolted on after an incident.
AI THREAT INTELLIGENCE
Intelligence on how adversaries are developing and deploying AI capability, fed into detection content so coverage tracks the threat rather than lagging it.
PRACTITIONER TRAINING
Four-day practitioner programs in AI security operations, so your own team can run the controls rather than depending permanently on ours.
HOW THE SERVICE OPERATES
AZIMUTH Stage 4 runs on the same operational discipline as our established managed security practice.
Priority
Notification target
Priority 1, high
Within 1 hour
Priority 2, medium
Within 8 hours
Priority 3, low
Within 24 hours
Notification is issued no later than 15 minutes after the point of confirmation, meaning the moment a security event is classified as an incident.
Monthly service review covering incident and threat trends, service level performance, incident notification and mitigation, service improvement plans, and project status.
A named SOC structure: SOC Manager, SOC Specialist, and SOC Analyst, with a defined escalation path on both sides.
On-demand threat hunting for advanced or suspicious cases, up to four working hours per request with next-business-day acknowledgement.
Requests for quotation acknowledged within three business days, with a final quote within five business days of validation.
Scheduled consulting sessions that keep the AI estate aligned to a moving business. Requirements change, new use cases appear, and the control set has to move with them. Otherwise the roadmap delivered in Stage 1 quietly goes stale.
WHAT EACH SESSION COVERS
Use-case mapping. Define and map emerging operational use cases against the existing control baseline.
Requirement change review. Track shifts in business requirements and re-test the assumptions behind current policy.
Safe delivery design. Determine how to use AI to meet each new requirement without widening the attack surface.
Roadmap refresh. Re-score the affected domains and reissue the roadmap to keep the program current.
Availability. Stage 5 is in development. It is shown here so the full direction of the program is visible. Scope and scheduling are confirmed once the delivery model is finalized.
Findings and controls are mapped to the reference frameworks your organization is most likely to be measured against. Applicability depends on your sector, data types, use cases, contractual obligations, and risk appetite.
Framework
How it is used
MITRE ATLAS
Every technique executed is tagged at technique level, so coverage is reported as a heatmap and compared across engagements and over time.
OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications
Prompt injection, sensitive-information disclosure, supply chain, and excessive agency map directly to the test cases.
NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0
Provides the risk-management structure, functions, and terminology: Govern, Map, Measure, Manage.
NIST Generative AI Profile (AI 600-1)
Generative-AI-specific risk profile and suggested actions used in scoring GenAI and LLM use cases.
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
Baseline cybersecurity governance and Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover framing.
ISO/IEC 42001 and ISO/IEC 27001
AI management-system and information-security management-system concepts: asset inventory, control effectiveness, competence, continual improvement.
EU AI Act
Relevant where you operate high-risk AI systems in the EU. Available as a separate scope; not part of the US-focused baseline.
Sectoral privacy triage
FERPA, HIPAA, GLBA, CCPA/CPRA, and FTC guidance, flagged by the sector-triage step where applicable.
An important distinction. Alignment means our findings and recommendations are mapped to these frameworks so they are useful as evidence. AZIMUTH engagements are not audits, and they do not provide certification or formal attestation against any of them.
How an Engagement Runs
A clear division of responsibility from day one: environment access and decision rights on your side, delivery capability on ours, scope and findings owned jointly.
What you provide
Environment access and stakeholder availability
Written authorization to test in scope
A named internal owner for the program
What we provide
Assessment and adversarial testing capability
Platform deployment and enablement services
Continuous detection and response coverage
Methodology, tooling, and reporting
Shared
Agreed scope and rules of engagement
Findings review and remediation cadence
Risk acceptance decisions on record
Named escalation path on both sides
Scope, timeline, and commercial terms are confirmed following the Stage 1 readiness assessment.
Security-first by origin. We're not an AI consultancy that added security. We're an offensive security and cyber defense practice extending into AI, built on years of operational-technology and critical-infrastructure work.
Measured, not asserted. Control effectiveness is reported as a block rate taken from the wire, with a before-and-after retest. Posture grades are assigned against observed evidence, not stated policy.
The full lifecycle under one roof. Assessment, adversarial proof, platform enablement, and continuous managed coverage, from one accountable team, not four vendors stitched together.
Built for physical-consequence environments. Our roots are in maritime, energy, healthcare, and industrial operations, where an AI failure moves equipment, not just data. That shapes how we test and what we require before go-live.
