Understand what your robot connects to, what it shares and who can control it.
Planning a robot deployment in the UAE? Review the connected application, data flows and operator access before asking a customer or venue to approve it.
A robot deployment includes more than the machine. Operator software, cloud services and AI integrations all shape what the system can access and do.
Voice, cameras, documents
and operator requests
Operator portals, APIs,
model services and tools
Robot interfaces, connectivity,
updates and recovery
The review records connections in both directions, including commands, returned data and external service dependencies.
Choose the areas relevant to your deployment. We agree the configuration, access and depth of testing before the review.
Where does the information go?
Map camera, microphone, document and telemetry flows. Review the connected services, storage settings and available controls for sharing and retention.
Useful evidence A data-flow map, external dependencies and questions to resolve with suppliers.
Who can see, change or control it?
Review operator accounts, application permissions, API credentials and remote support arrangements. Examine how access is granted, limited and removed.
Useful evidence An access review with configuration findings and recommended changes.
What is the assistant allowed to do?
Examine the boundary between voice or language-model output and application actions. Agree tests for untrusted inputs, tool permissions and operator approval in a controlled setup.
Useful evidence Defined test scenarios, observed behaviour and improvements to application controls.
What is connected and exposed?
Record the exact robot edition, firmware and software. Review documented interfaces, network separation and relevant advisories; include ROS 2/DDS configuration where it is part of the system.
Useful evidence A configuration inventory and findings tied to the versions and access reviewed.
What happens when something changes?
Review update dependencies, logs and operator recovery arrangements. Examine agreed application behaviour when connectivity, credentials or a model service becomes unavailable.
Useful evidence A record of recovery assumptions, observed gaps and follow-up tests.
Use the findings with your engineering team, supplier and IT decision-makers. Each finding identifies the affected component, supporting evidence and a practical next step.
Findings are manually reviewed before delivery. We separate confirmed observations from assumptions and unverified areas. A remediation work package and retest can be agreed after the review.
Discuss your deploymentStart when there is a specific deployment, integration or approval question to resolve.
Prepare technical evidence for a customer’s IT review and identify work needed before handover.
Understand a proposed network connection, cloud dependency or change to an existing robot application.
Discuss a defined robotics work package within your wider assessment, with responsibilities agreed up front.
Our development background covers the G1 console, operator workflows, knowledge and voice integrations. Security engagements are scoped around the available access and the expertise the work requires.
See our development backgroundThis service covers cybersecurity review and deployment evidence. Functional safety certification and regulatory certification are outside its scope.
Share the robot, connected applications, environment, deadline and questions from your customer or IT team.
Confirm authorised access, methods, test conditions, deliverables, required expertise and exclusions in a written scope.
Walk through findings and limitations with your team, prioritise fixes and decide what needs further testing.
Here it means cybersecurity for robots and their connected AI applications: the data they collect, the services they use and the permissions around control. Our starting point is a defined humanoid or robot-dog deployment. Other platforms are assessed individually.
Our initial service is a scoped cybersecurity and deployment review, with the systems, methods and exclusions agreed in writing. It does not provide functional safety certification, regulatory certification or a guarantee that a robot is secure. Firmware exploitation, hardware security testing and physical safety assessment require separate specialist scope and capability.
Architecture, documentation, source code and selected application or configuration reviews may be possible remotely. Hardware-dependent findings need agreed access and test arrangements. The report distinguishes what was observed, what was supplied by others and what could not be verified.
Testing is agreed before work begins, including ownership permission, systems in scope and stop conditions. Application tests start in an isolated or simulated environment where appropriate. Live motion and disruptive testing are outside the initial review unless separately scoped with suitable expertise and controls. Simulation results do not establish physical safety.
Yes, as a development security review with our involvement disclosed. Independent assurance needs a separately appointed assessor. We can scope implementation of agreed fixes and a subsequent retest; neither should be represented as independent certification.
Start with the robot model and firmware, connected applications, deployment environment and decision you need to make. We confirm access, required expertise, review criteria, deliverables, limitations and price before agreeing the work. Remediation and retesting are itemised where included.
Published guidance can inform the review criteria for your project. References do not imply endorsement, certification or that every control applies to every robot.
Tell us the model, the environment and the security question you need answered. We’ll help define a focused review.
Scope a security reviewModel and configuration first. Clear scope before testing.