Services
Understand where cryptography is used, identify migration priorities, and test a selected approach through clearly scoped assessment and laboratory work for SaaS companies and SMEs.
Evolext’s work currently focuses on research, assessment, and controlled laboratory prototypes. Production changes require separately agreed engineering and validation.
Discuss your scope ↗01 / We do not know where cryptography is used.
Where is cryptography used, and what evidence is missing?
A named system owner and written authorization for the agreed scope
A scoped cryptographic inventory with source and confidence labels
Supported source observations and supplied system evidence; no promise of complete discovery.
See more info ↗02 / We need priorities and a roadmap.
Which migration decisions should we prioritize, investigate, or defer?
A cryptographic inventory or enough evidence to establish a bounded baseline
An evidence-labelled readiness summary and decision register
Prioritization and a roadmap; no compliance certification or readiness guarantee.
See more info ↗03 / We have a defined candidate to test.
Can a selected approach meet agreed compatibility and operational criteria in a test environment?
A selected use case with an identified owner and decision objective
A documented architecture decision and evidence level
Isolated testing of a selected path; production deployment and independent assurance are separately scoped.
See more info ↗Agree the question, systems, decision owners, and intended outputs.
Confirm written authorization, access boundaries, and evidence-handling arrangements before collection.
Review approved evidence or test a selected approach within the agreed environment.
Walk through observations, uncertainty, limitations, and acceptance criteria.
Record actions, owners, unresolved questions, and any separately scoped work.
Illustrative example · not client work
Illustrative example · not client work
Illustrative example · not client work
Evolext work is research-, assessment-, and prototype-stage. Guidance and source findings do not establish production readiness, compliance, or universal security.
Explore the complete report ↗Access boundaries, approved collection methods, permitted recipients, and retention or deletion arrangements must be agreed before collection. Discuss whether approved exports can answer the question without production access. Do not send repositories, credentials, keys, or confidential reports through the inquiry form.
Read the privacy policy ↗NCCoE guidance informs discovery and migration planning. FIPS 203, 204, and 205 define ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SLH-DSA algorithm standards respectively; they do not establish protocol, vendor, or system readiness. Applicable references and implementation limits must be recorded for each engagement. References are not certification.
Last reviewed:
Yes. A bounded inventory can be the first task. If you already have suitable evidence, we can discuss whether it supports an assessment directly.
No. The current prototype inspects supported source files and recognized local dependency declarations. Other evidence requires a separately agreed review.
No. The work produces scoped evidence and decisions, not certification, a readiness guarantee, or comprehensive security assurance.
Potentially. We agree which exports can answer the question and record what cannot be verified. Production access is not assumed.
We record gaps, assumptions, owners, and follow-up questions. An unsupported path may be deferred or stopped rather than presented as ready.
Current work focuses on research, assessment, and controlled laboratory prototypes. Production engineering, deployment, validation, and independent assurance require separately agreed scope.
Tell us which system or migration decision you want to explore. Keep the first inquiry high-level; do not submit credentials, private keys, secrets, or confidential reports.
Discuss your scope ↗Submitted contact details are stored in Supabase, and notifications may be sent through LINE.
