Trybus Solutions works out what a framework requires of your technical environment, builds the controls that satisfy it, writes the policy and procedure set describing them, and assembles the evidence an assessor asks to see.
Most of this work starts for one of a few reasons. A customer or an insurer has sent a questionnaire the environment cannot answer honestly. A contract has arrived with a compliance clause flowed down through it. An auditor has left findings with dates attached.
Our clients usually have their own IT team, and often somebody who owns compliance as part of a wider job. We are there for the technical half of the work, and for the writing nobody in a busy team gets to.
Scope varies, and a first examination at a two-hundred-person company does not need the documentation a defense contract flow-down does. Below is what we produce on a typical mid-size engagement, and we agree which of it you need at scoping.
Everything we produce is yours, and complete enough for another firm to work from if you take it elsewhere.
Trybus is framework-independent. We do not sell a framework, we do not resell a governance platform, and we have no reason to steer you toward one control set over another. Which one applies is settled by your contracts, your regulator and your customers. What we do with it is mapping: taking the control set as written, working out which of your systems it actually reaches, and showing where each requirement is met and where it is not.
The Security Rule is written as safeguards rather than a product list. Mapping means showing where protected health information sits, who can reach it, and how access is granted, removed and encrypted. Clinical equipment nobody can patch, and business associates holding part of your evidence, are the awkward parts.
Scope decides everything here: which systems store, process or transmit cardholder data, and which can reach those. The evidence has to show that segmentation holds, that access carries multi-factor authentication, that logging is retained and reviewed, and that scanning happens on schedule. Estates with many small sites are where it gets expensive.
The obligation arrives through a contract clause and reaches every system touching Controlled Unclassified Information. The work starts by drawing a boundary around those systems, then assesses each requirement against them, writes a system security plan describing how each is met, and keeps a dated plan of action for the rest. The boundary drives everything downstream, so it is the first conversation we have.
SOC 2 is an examination against criteria you help select, which is why organizations underestimate it. You decide which trust services criteria belong in scope, and then have to evidence that the controls operated across a period of months rather than on the day. Access reviews performed on time, and consistent onboarding and offboarding, decide that outcome.
The framework is voluntary, which makes it a useful organizing structure when nothing has been mandated. Here the exercise is scoring the current state across the framework functions, agreeing a target proportionate to the organization, and turning the distance between the two into a roadmap with dates against it.
Most mid-size organizations carry two or three obligations at once, and the control sets overlap heavily. Multi-factor authentication, logging, access reviews and encryption appear in all of them under different numbering. We build one control set, map it out to each framework, and collect the evidence once.
Broadly the same shape whether it is a first examination at one site or a flow-down across an estate. Timescales depend on the scope, the state of the documentation, and how quickly your own people get to their part.
Most of what is below is work we do. It is not part of a compliance engagement by default, because each piece carries its own scope, its own schedule and its own cost. If you want any of it included, say so at scoping and we will quote it in. The last item is different: it is work we do not do at all.
The control sets do not change much between sectors. What changes is which obligation arrives first, who owns it, and how much of the evidence sits with somebody else.
Clinical systems and connected equipment that cannot be patched or taken offline at will, and business associates holding part of your evidence.
Records retention, procurement rules, criminal justice data wherever law enforcement is involved, and disclosure obligations that shape what gets written down.
Sovereignty over data and systems, funding cycles outside the commercial year, and government, health, education and gaming obligations carried at once.
Examinations that recur on a schedule, supervision and retention duties, and third-party risk questions asked about every vendor with access.
Student records, filtering obligations tied to funding programs, research data with its own terms, and accounts that turn over every year.
Payment obligations across many small sites with no local IT, where reducing what falls inside the boundary beats any control you can buy.
Several frameworks at once, security questionnaires arriving continuously, and estates still carrying whatever an acquisition brought with it.
We do not sell a governance platform and we do not resell one. A control has to exist in the environment before it can be evidenced, and most of them end up in identity, access, network and logging products. These are the ones our engineers build them in most often, and they also work in platforms we do not sell.
We do not publish comparisons between manufacturers. Which platform suits an organization is something an assessment works out, not something a website should decide.
Tell us which framework you are being held to, what prompted the conversation and what date is driving it. We will tell you what we think needs doing and what does not, and put a scope and a number against it.
