Attack path simulation.
We walk the attack, not the list.
A list of vulnerabilities sorted by CVSS tells you what is broken, not what is reachable. This builds a directed graph of your assets, access paths and weaknesses, plays out how an attacker would chain them, and names the one fix that collapses the most paths.
What it does
- Sign-in anomaly signals from SDK auth events
- Attack-path chaining with a 0–100 blast radius
- Zero Trust score across five dimensions
- Scheduled outside-in web checks between annual penetration tests
Severity is a property of the path, not the finding
A critical CVE on a host nothing can reach is a maintenance ticket. A medium-severity misconfiguration that bridges a public bucket to a production credential is an incident waiting for a date. Sorting by CVSS reverses those two, which is why long vulnerability lists get triaged by whoever shouts loudest rather than by consequence.
Chaining them instead produces a much shorter list: the specific sequences that actually reach something valuable, each with the blast radius if it completes, and the single link whose removal breaks the most sequences at once.
Testing that runs where the code is
The real testing (SAST, SCA, DAST, IaC and secret scanning) runs inside your own pipeline through the SDK and the CI gate, not by inference from cloud configuration and a questionnaire. That distinction matters twice: the results describe code that was actually built, and nothing needs write access to your environment to produce them.
Every integration is read-only by design, and the SDK performs no remediation on your behalf. Nothing we run changes state in your infrastructure.
A finding that knows which control it breaks
Security tools and compliance tools usually hold separate worlds, so a failed control is discovered at audit time and a live finding never reaches the framework it invalidates.
On one control graph they are the same object. A check that fails moves the attack graph, the risk register’s residual score and the framework readiness in the same moment, and the evidence ledger records the failure as well as the pass, because an auditor asking what happened between two green dates needs the exception to exist.
Where this sits
This is one engine of eleven on a single control graph, which is why a result produced here reaches every framework that asks for it instead of being gathered again under another heading. The platform overview shows the other ten, and coverage lists the regimes they answer.
Related reading: enterprise security posture and security gates in CI as audit evidence.
The things people ask us
How is this different from a vulnerability scanner?
A scanner returns findings ranked by severity. This ranks by reachability and consequence: it chains weaknesses into the paths an attacker would actually walk, scores the blast radius if one completes, and identifies the single fix that breaks the most paths.
Do you need write access to our cloud accounts?
No. Every integration uses read-only credentials and scopes, and the SDK performs no remediation on your behalf. Nothing we run changes state in your environment.
Where does the actual scanning run?
Inside your pipeline. SAST, SCA, DAST, IaC and secret scanning execute through the SDK and the CI gate, so results describe the code you really shipped rather than being inferred from cloud settings and questionnaire answers.
What is the Zero Trust score made of?
Five dimensions, each scored from control results rather than self-assessment, so it moves when your posture moves. Like every other number here it is derived, not entered.
Does a security finding affect our compliance status?
Yes, immediately, and that is the point of running both on one control graph. A failing check moves the attack graph, residual risk and framework readiness at the same moment instead of surfacing at the next audit.
Your next audit could be a link.
Thirty minutes. We connect one cloud account live and show you real evidence landing in the ledger before the call ends.