One missed exposure costs more than one client
A client who discovers their own breach before their security provider does will tell other people in their industry. The damage is not the incident; it is the question of what else you are not seeing. And every client you add makes manual coverage less plausible than it was the month before.
One platform, many clients, no bleed between them
Monitor every client from a single place, with each client’s data genuinely separated rather than filtered apart in the interface. Separation here is enforced beneath the application, so a mistake in code cannot become one client seeing another’s findings.
Every client monitored from one platform
Client data separated at the data layer, not by a UI filter
Findings you can hand to a client with the evidence attached
An API for the tooling and reporting you already run
Questions we get asked
- How is one client’s data kept separate from another’s?
- Separation is enforced by the database rather than by application filtering. The credentials the application runs with cannot read across that boundary, so a missing filter in code does not become a cross-client disclosure. For a provider, that is the difference between a bug and a breach notification.
- Can we white-label findings for our clients?
- Findings carry their evidence and reasoning, which is what makes them presentable to a client rather than only actionable internally. Ask about the current state of branded reporting for your delivery model.
- Does pricing work per client or per platform?
- Pricing is not published. It is worth a conversation early, because provider economics differ from a single organisation buying for itself.
- How does this fit tooling we already run?
- Through a REST API covering the platform surface, and through event streams that deliver findings as they are produced rather than on a polling schedule.