Zhivko Todorov
ALL CASE STUDIES

CASE 13 · CIPHER · 2025

VPCPRIVATELINKWAFZERO TRUST

No public ingress, no VPN, no internet egress from prod.

A fintech with strict regulator expectations had a VPC topology that "worked but felt wrong" — a public ALB, a third-party WAF appliance, an open egress NAT. Their CISO wanted defensible boundaries. We redesigned the production VPC for zero-trust: no public ingress, no internet egress, every service-to-service call authenticated.

INDUSTRY

Fintech

DOMAIN

SECURITY

DELIVERED

2025

STACK

PRIVATELINK·VPC LATTICE·AWS WAF·CLOUDFRONT·IAM AUTH (SigV4)·SECRETS MANAGER·GATEWAY ENDPOINTS

RESULTS

What changed, by the numbers.

PUBLIC INGRESS

0

EVERYTHING VIA CLOUDFRONT

EGRESS NAT BILL

−84%

GATEWAY ENDPOINTS

CROSS-VPC CALLS

mTLS

VIA VPC LATTICE

PEN-TEST FINDINGS

P0: 0

WAS 3 EXPLOITABLE

HOW IT WENT

The first thing we did was draw the actual traffic map — every flow, every protocol, every credential. The drawing didn’t fit on one screen. The CISO understood why she’d been uncomfortable; the team understood why every change broke something.

We collapsed the topology around CloudFront → AWS WAF → PrivateLink → VPC Lattice. Public ingress became a single CloudFront distribution per environment. VPC Lattice handled service-to-service calls with IAM authentication, replacing a homegrown JWT layer. Egress to AWS services went through Gateway Endpoints; the few external SaaS dependencies got dedicated PrivateLink connections.

The next pen-test ran three weeks. The previous report had three P0 exploitable findings. The new report had two P3 findings (both about logging verbosity) and a polite footnote from the assessor recommending we publish the architecture as a reference.

READY WHEN YOU ARE

Let's get your AWS bill (and architecture) in order.

The discovery call is free. You walk away with at least one concrete idea — even if we never work together.

Or email directly →