Which problem does it solve?
Security is rarely ignored completely in complex projects. More often, teams lack a shared technical structure for applying security boundaries, services and integration approaches consistently across projects.
Shared Platform Security reduces recurring engineering effort: HSM integration, cryptographic services, access protection and technical approval points do not need to be implemented differently again in every project.
How does a client recognize they need it?
- Security should be considered from the beginning in a platform.
- An embedded platform or technical platform is being developed.
- An HSM or other security components need to be integrated.
- Security services and integration approaches should be used across projects.
- Security is inconsistent across projects.
Typical situations
- Security by Design for a platform or embedded system
- HSM integration into an existing technical architecture
- Shared security services and integration approaches for several projects
- Architecture review of security-relevant system boundaries
- Integration of security requirements into platform decisions
Approach
I work from the system: assets, data flows, trust boundaries, technical responsibilities and integration points. The result is security architecture, shared services and concrete guidance for engineering teams.
The focus is on standardized integration paths and platform boundaries. This avoids duplicated implementations, reduces interpretation gaps and makes security-relevant decisions more consistent across projects.
Practical example
One practical example is a reusable embedded security platform with HSM integration, cryptographic services and standardized integration approaches. In that context, the platform approach reduced security integration effort by approximately 75 percent and was used across several projects.
Technical requirements shaped by regulation
Regulatory frameworks such as the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) or NIS2 can increase the pressure to build Security by Design, Product Security and traceable architecture decisions into technical systems earlier. My contribution is not legal assessment or the preparation of formal evidence, but the technical interpretation of such requirements and their translation into robust Security Architecture, protection boundaries, Threat Modeling, documented decisions and Engineering Enablement.
Typical entry points
- Security architecture review for existing platforms or technical security decisions
- Trust boundary assessment for clarifying data flows, access paths and protection boundaries
- Platform security assessment for evaluating security services, integration paths and operating constraints
Where useful, this leads into Platform Security Consulting: concrete security architecture, integration guidance or technical support for security-relevant platform decisions.
Concrete deliverables
- Security architecture
- Platform security concepts
- Integration guidance
- Shared security services and integration approaches
- Recommendations for security-relevant architecture decisions
- Documented review findings for security boundaries
What is explicitly not included
- Cybersecurity consulting without architecture context
- Compliance or governance consulting
- Legal assessment of regulatory requirements or formal compliance/audit advisory work
- Pentesting
- ISO consulting
- GRC
- Audits
Suitable follow-up projects
- Security architecture review
- HSM integration concept
- Platform guidelines for Security by Design
- Deeper work on security-relevant architecture decisions
- Engineering Enablement through technical guidelines, reviews and knowledge transfer
Related services
If local models, RAG/agents, source-code protection and access concepts are central, the question belongs to AI-Assisted Engineering. If the overall technical architecture needs to be clarified first, Systems Architecture is the better fit.