Marx Computer Service GmbH

Taking Responsibility in Complex IT Architectures

We are engaged when IT structures become critical, historically grown, or strategically misaligned.

Our mandates typically arise in situations where stability, security, and governance are no longer optional — but essential.

For confidentiality reasons, we do not publish client names.
The following examples reflect typical project contexts and responsibility scenarios..

IT Reconstruction After a Security Incident

Initial Situation

• Partial failure of business-critical systems
• Lack of documentation and governance structures
• Unclear identity and permission models

Scope of Responsibility

• Structured restoration of core infrastructure
• Redesign of identity and access management
• Implementation of hardening measures aligned with BSI/CIS principles
• Integration of governance-compliant cloud structures
• Automation of security-relevant processes

Outcome

• Stabilized and hardened IT environment
• Transparent and controlled access structures
• Reduced structural security risk
• Documented governance framework

Architecture and Security Advisory at Government Level

Initial Situation

• Heterogeneous IT landscape
• High regulatory expectations
• Need for unified architecture principles

Scope of Responsibility

• Architecture assessment and definition of binding guidelines
• Introduction of cross-organizational security solutions
• Support during penetration testing
• Contribution to SIEM and SOC establishment
• Alignment with national security frameworks

Outcome

• Structured and documented target architecture
• Increased compliance transparency
• Sustainable and scalable security framework

Global Infrastructure Stabilization in Enterprise Environments

Initial Situation

• Globally distributed data centers
• Complex service provider structures
• High SLA and availability requirements

Scope of Responsibility

• Stabilization of storage and server environments
• Introduction of structured ITIL-based processes
• Transparent service and reporting models
• Strategic architectural development under live operations

Outcome

• Stable global service operations
• Reduced operational risk
• Improved governance and accountability

Infrastructure Resilience in Financial Environments

Initial Situation

• Hundreds to thousands of server systems
• Strict regulatory requirements
• Demanding recovery time objectives

Scope of Responsibility

• Architectural review of disaster recovery strategies
• Evaluation and selection of appropriate technologies
• Structured recovery planning within defined SLAs
• Documentation of resilience and restart processes

Outcome

• Validated recoverability
• Reduced outage risk
• Auditable resilience architecture

Data Center Modernization Under Operational Pressure

Initial Situation

• Historically grown infrastructure
• Heterogeneous storage and server landscape
• Migration required during live production

Scope of Responsibility

• Architecture review and target definition
• Planning and steering of complex SAN/NAS migrations
• Infrastructure consolidation
• Introduction of structured change and service processes

Outcome

• Consolidated and stabilized infrastructure
• Improved availability
• Reduced complexity
• Sustainable architectural framework

Typical Project Environments

We regularly operate in environments with:

• 200 to several thousand users
• Hybrid on-premise and cloud architectures
• Increasing governance and documentation expectations
• Complex identity and permission structures
• Transformation initiatives under operational pressure

We work discreetly, in a structured and responsible manner.
Trust is built on resilient architecture — not on logos.