Security at Evolvier is an architecture property, not a launch-week checklist. Every system we design — whether a custom platform for a client or one of our own products — carries the same baseline controls, because retrofitting security into a shipped system is more expensive and less reliable than designing it in. This page documents that baseline.
Data protection
Data is encrypted in both states it exists in: AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.3 in transit. There is no tier of system where weaker transport or storage encryption is acceptable — staging environments and internal tooling follow the same standard as production.
Access follows a zero-trust architecture: no request is trusted by virtue of where it comes from. Every call — user-facing or service-to-service — is authenticated and authorized explicitly, using token-based authentication with credentials scoped to the minimum required privilege. Hiding a button in a UI is not a security boundary; authorization is enforced server-side on every endpoint.
In front of application traffic sits a Web Application Firewall (WAF), filtering injection attempts, malformed requests, and abusive traffic patterns before they reach application code. Environments are hardened in alignment with ISO/IEC 27001 practices — locked-down configurations, controlled access, and audited change paths.
Regional compliance
Operating across the US, UK, UAE, Canada, Europe, Africa, and India means data protection law is not one regime but several, and the architecture has to respect all of them simultaneously. We design for this with regional data isolation: data residency boundaries are drawn into the schema and infrastructure from the start, so records governed by one jurisdiction do not silently replicate into another.
The regimes we build against:
- GDPR (UK & Europe) — data sovereignty compliant design: lawful-basis handling, data minimization, and residency controls for UK and European personal data.
- PIPEDA (Canada) — personal record protection alignment for systems handling Canadian personal information.
- UAE Data Protection Law — federal data protection aligned architecture for UAE deployments and GCC-facing platforms.
Compliance embedded natively also shortens your own audits: when isolation and access controls are structural, demonstrating them is a matter of pointing at the architecture rather than compiling exceptions.
Payment security
Payment flows get a stricter standard than general application data, because they concentrate both risk and regulatory attention. Two controls are non-negotiable in the payment systems we build:
- 3D Secure 2.0 for cardholder authentication, shifting fraud liability appropriately and meeting strong customer authentication requirements in regulated markets.
- Tokenization for card data, so raw payment credentials never persist in application databases. Systems store tokens; the sensitive material stays with the payment processor.
These controls run in production today in our own commerce products — including Peyze, which processes international, multi-vendor payments across regions — so the patterns we deploy for clients are patterns we operate ourselves.
Secure SDLC practices
Controls at runtime only hold if the path to production is disciplined. Our development lifecycle is built around making insecure changes hard to ship:
- Typed, reviewed code. Codebases are TypeScript end to end where applicable, and every change is peer-reviewed before merge. Type systems catch a class of injection and data-handling errors at compile time.
- Automated pipelines. Code reaches production through CI/CD pipelines — tested, built, and deployed without manual server access. No artifacts are hand-edited on a box.
- Least-privilege access. Engineers, services, and pipelines each hold the minimum credentials their role requires, with short-lived tokens preferred over long-lived secrets.
- Security as a design input. Threat surfaces, authentication flows, and data residency are part of the architecture review before code is written — the same review where schema and API contracts are settled.
The result is a system where the security posture is documented, reviewable, and consistent — not dependent on any individual remembering to do the right thing.
If you are evaluating us for a build with specific compliance requirements, or you need this posture mapped against your own security questionnaire, talk to us directly. You will get answers from the engineers who implement these controls.