Vulnerability Operations (VulnOps) Automation
Defending against Frontier AI threats by designing and implementing automated vulnerability and patch management workflows and tooling.
What we see
The volume and pace of vulnerability disclosure has outgrown the manual processes most organisations still rely on to handle it. Scanners generate thousands of findings a week; a Known Exploited Vulnerability (KEV) can go from disclosure to active exploitation in days or even hours, and Frontier AI models such as Mythos are only accelerating that timeline further.
Most enterprises respond to this with people, not process: a security analyst triages a spreadsheet, chases an asset owner over email, raises a change manually, and hopes someone remembers to check it actually worked. The tools involved usually exist, but they operate in silos and rely on manual handoffs.
The result is a queue that grows faster than it can be worked, priorities set by assumption, and "patched" being treated as "verified closed", when the two are often not the same thing at all.
What we do
We design and build the automation that turns vulnerability management into VulnOps - a single, governed workflow that takes a finding from first detection through to independently verified closure, without a person manually bridging the gaps between tools.
We don't start by replacing what you have. Most organisations already own the components needed = a vulnerability scanner, CMDB, ITSM and workflow orchestration, and patch deployment tooling - but they were never wired together as one process.
Our work is the integration and orchestration layer that connects them: automated intake and deduplication, CI matching against a live CMDB, risk-based prioritisation that reflects actual business criticality, and remediation routed through the right change path automatically - through to a closure that's verified by re-scan, not assumed.
How we do it
We work through the full vulnerability lifecycle as a single connected flow, not a set of disconnected tools: Intake, Match, Assess, Decide, Prepare, Execute, Verify.
We start by mapping how findings currently move through your organisation today - where the handoffs are, where they break down, and which stages already have usable data versus those that need work. From there, we design the target-state process against your actual toolchain, define the decision logic at each stage, and build the integrations that make it real.
We prove the model initially against a deliberately narrow scope, to validate the mechanics end-to-end before extending coverage further. Throughout, we build in the audit trail and metrics leadership and audit teams need, and evidence that closure was independently verified rather than self-reported.
The result is a vulnerability process that runs at the pace the threat landscape now demands - governed, measurable, and built on the tools you already have.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Isn't this just vulnerability management with a new name?
No - vulnerability management is usually the scanning and reporting layer. VulnOps is the operating discipline that sits on top of it: the defined, automated workflow that takes a finding all the way through prioritisation, remediation and independently verified closure. Most organisations have the former already. Very few have the latter.
Q. We already have a scanner and a ticketing process - why do we need VulnOps?
Because a scanner tells you what's wrong, and a ticket tells someone to go and fix it - but neither one closes the loop or bridges the gap between security and operations teams. Without an automated, governed workflow connecting detection to verified closure, prioritisation ends up based on who shouts loudest, remediation timelines are inconsistent, and "closed" often just means a ticket was marked resolved, not that the associated vulnerability is verified closed..
Q. Does this mean replacing our existing tools?
Rarely. Most of the value comes from properly connecting and orchestrating what you already have - your vulnerability scanner, CMDB, ITSM platform and patch tooling - rather than replacing any of them. The exception is where a genuine capability gap exists (for example, no reliable way to verify patch deployment); in which case we'll tell you plainly rather than build around it.
Q. What happens to the vulnerabilities that don't fit a clean automated patching path?
There are likely to be some vulnerabilities that you will be unable to patch directly - third party hosted systems and code vulnerabilities in third party software for example. They don't get lost - they get routed deliberately to a manual process with clear ownership, rather than being silently dropped or left to age in a queue.
Q. How do you prove this is actually working, rather than just looking better on paper?Through the same verification the process itself is built on: closure confirmed by independent re-scan, not self-reported by the analyst that applied the patch. Combined with time-to-remediate metrics against SLA and visibility into what proportion of findings closed without manual intervention, that gives you (and your board or auditors) evidence of a working control, not just a completed ticket count.
