Service
Firewall Review
Firewall rule and exposure review for UK SMEs — find overly permissive access, risky remote admin and segmentation concerns.
A Firewall Review examines firewall rules and exposed paths for overly permissive access, risky remote administration and segmentation gaps. It is for inherited or exception-heavy perimeters that nobody wants to own — made understandable again.
BoundaryProof runs Firewall reviews as focused, authorised engagements alongside Web, External Infrastructure and OSINT. The goal is not to shame historical decisions. The goal is to make the permit surface understandable again and to give your team a practical tidy-up list.
What it is
Rule base review with attention to inbound exposure, broad permits, shadowed or duplicate rules, and remote access patterns that enlarge blast radius. We look for the boring problems that cause real incidents: management paths left open, vendor holes that outlived the vendor, flat allow patterns between zones that were supposed to be separated, and documentation that no longer matches reality.
Where useful, we connect firewall findings to what is visible externally — because a rule that permits traffic only matters if something accepts it. That is why Firewall and External Infrastructure often inform each other without being the same service.
Who it is for
SMEs with on-prem or cloud firewalls managed in-house or with an MSP. Teams post-migration who suspect temporary rules became permanent. Businesses preparing for insurance questionnaires or customer reviews that ask about perimeter control. Technical founders who know the firewall “grew with us”.
If you do not control or cannot authorise the firewall, we cannot review it. If your question is purely about application vulnerabilities on a single site, start with Web. If you need public phishing-exposure analysis, start with OSINT.
What we need
Authorisation and access to the relevant rule sets or rule exports (or agreed read-only access). Diagrams if you have them. A list of known remote access methods. Change windows and contacts who can implement fixes. Honesty about shadow IT paths if you know them.
Multi-vendor estates are fine when scope is explicit. Surprise scanning of unrelated networks is not. Third-party firewalls without permission are refused.
What you get
Prioritised findings, evidence and business impact in plain English, remediation guidance your IT or MSP can execute, a debrief call, and optional retest after rule changes. The report should help you delete, tighten and document — not drown you in low-value noise.
What we will not do
We will not silently redesign your entire network architecture under the guise of a focused review. Larger redesigns can be recommended as follow-up. We will not work without authorisation. We will not accept “check their firewall” requests about unrelated organisations. We do not sell CE+ or claim universal coverage of every security discipline.
Practical outcomes teams aim for
Fewer open management paths. Clearer remote access. Rules with owners. Better alignment between firewall intent and External Infrastructure reality. A calmer answer when someone asks “what do we allow in?” — backed by a recent review rather than folklore.
Example starting scenarios
Your MSP asks which old rules can die. Your team opened ports for a project and lost the thread. Insurance questions ask about remote access control. You want segmentation intent to match reality. A Firewall Review produces an actionable list and a debrief that includes the people who can change the rules.
If internet discovery is missing, we may recommend External Infrastructure alongside or after. If an allowed path leads to a fragile web admin, Web may be next. Sequencing stays explicit.
Fit with the rest of the site
Firewall Review is often the most “operations-owned” of the four services. That is a strength when the right people join the debrief. It is a weakness when findings are emailed into a void. We will help you plan attendance so remediation can actually start.
Because firewall changes can be sensitive, we agree windows and constraints up front. The point is controlled improvement, not surprise disruption. Authorisation and clear communication with MSPs or internal IT are non-negotiable.
What “good enough” looks like after Firewall
Broad permits should be challenged. Temporary exceptions should either die or become documented with owners and review dates. Remote administration should be constrained to justified paths. Segmentation intent should match what the rules actually allow, even if the architecture is imperfect.
Your MSP or internal IT should leave the debrief with a sequenced tidy-up list rather than a vague sense of guilt. That is the practical win. Pairing Firewall with External Infrastructure afterwards can confirm that internet reality matches the new intent.
If you need application-layer assurance on something the firewall still allows to the world, Web is the natural sequel. Keep each step authorised, sized, and finishable.
Authorised scope and inbound buying
Firewall reviews need access to rule sets you control or can authorise. “Check their firewall” about a third party is refused. Inbound only. No CE+ certification product. Free intro remains a conversation, not permission to change or probe production.
Ready to talk it through?
Book a free intro call to confirm fit, authorisation and scope. Prefer the form? Use the contact section on the main site.
Also see: Web Assessment · External Infrastructure · OSINT · Start here
Out of scope for Firewall
Firewall Review needs rule exports or equivalent authorised access to rule sets you control. It is not silent full network redesign, not application testing of every allowed path (use Web where needed), not external discovery alone (use Infra), and not “check their firewall” about a third party.