SPNT

Security Operating System

Your security stack is fragmented.Serpentine replaces it.

One platform for continuous audit and detection, offensive validation, infrastructure hardening, compliance governance, and adversarial research. Five modules. One reasoning layer. One security graph.

Sovereign EU infrastructure · No customer data used for training. · SOC 2 Type II: In progress

Finding lifecycle

Active finding

Exposed admin endpoint

Administrative access exposed without authentication

High risk · Validated

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

Discover
Validate
Remediate
Prove
Reasoning across all stages
9OSINT sources
8telemetry sources
35compliance frameworks
3,144mapped obligations
5reasoning output types

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.

Your controls are declared, not verified.
Your audit evidence is not defensible.
Your security state is fragmented across tools.

Fragmented operating model

AuditFindings listSeparate context
OffenseExploit notesManual validation
HardeningConfig changesNo evidence reuse
GovernanceCompliance foldersDuplicated evidence

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.

FragmentedSerpentine

Current State: Fragmented Tools

Discovery

Vulnerability scanners

No validation

Validation

Manual pentest

No remediation link

Remediation

Ticketing systems

No evidence

Compliance

Spreadsheets

No automation

With Serpentine: Unified System

Discovery

Odbrana

Normalized findings

Validation

Napad

Exploitability confirmed

Remediation

Postava

Policy deployed

Compliance

Regulativa

Evidence mapped

Reality Check

Security posture is often wrong.

Most systems claim controls are in place. Serpentine shows where reality breaks them.

Most security platforms tell you what you've declared. Serpentine tells you what's actually true.

Control State Contradictions
2 UNRESOLVED

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

SOC 2 CC6.1ISO A.5.15

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

Vuln Mgmt

Breaks SOC 2 attestation. Invalidates ISO A.5.15.

This is what Serpentine actually produces

OdbranaCRITICAL

XXE Injection — External Entity Processing

POST/catalog/product/stock

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

NapadVALIDATED

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

RegulativaGAP

Control Contradiction

ControlISO 27001 A.8.8
AssertionInput validation enforced
EvidenceContradicted by ODB-2024-0847

Audit assertion invalidated. Control requires remediation evidence before re-attestation.

IstragaPREDICTED

Adversarial Context

This XXE pattern matches campaign cluster NS-A7 TTPs (T1190 → T1059 → T1041). 12 documented exploitations in public threat research. Estimated attacker dwell time post-exploitation: 4-11 days.

Chained risk

If combined with weak egress filtering (detected on adjacent asset), enables out-of-band exfiltration of internal service map.

Recommended priority elevation: validate against authenticated paths within 72h.

See what your system gets wrong

We'll show real contradictions in your environment.

Book a Demo

30-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.

Inputs
Scanner output
Attack validation
Hardening actions
Compliance requirements
Shared Security GraphSingle source of truth
Assets

Written by: Postava

Used by: All

·
Findings

Written by: Odbrana

Used by: Napad, Regulativa

·
Validation

Written by: Napad

Used by: Postava, Regulativa

·
Remediation

Written by: Postava

Used by: Regulativa

·
Evidence

Written by: All

Used by: Regulativa

·
Controls

Written by: Regulativa

Used by: All

·
Risks

Written by: All

Used by: Reporting

·
Actions

Written by: All

Used by: Workflow

Hover any entity to see which modules write and read it

Outputs
Validated risk
Remediation path
Audit evidence
Executive reporting

This is not a dashboard aggregating external data. This is an operating system where every action updates the same state.

The Platform

Four execution modules. One reasoning layer.

Specialized interfaces for each security discipline, unified by one security graph and one research layer.

Odbranawrites findingsNapadwrites validationPostavawrites remediationRegulativawrites evidence

All modules read and write to the same security graph. Istraga reasons across all outputs.

The Mechanism

How Serpentine turns findings into evidence.

1

Normalize

Odbrana

Turns scanner output into structured findings.

Updates the same operating state

2

Validate

Napad

Confirms whether the risk is exploitable.

Updates the same operating state

3

Remediate

Postava

Creates or applies hardening policy.

Updates the same operating state

4

Prove

Regulativa

Maps the outcome to controls and evidence.

Updates the same operating state

Reason

Istraga

Synthesises across all steps. Validates attack paths, predicts emerging risk.

Reads from all

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
Explore use case

CTO / Engineering

  • Fewer tools to manage
  • Faster remediation cycles
  • Less security debt
Explore use case

MSSP / Security Firm

  • Repeatable delivery model
  • Client-ready reporting
  • Multi-tenant workflows
Explore use case

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.

Systems in EU DatacentersZero Training: Customer data never usedSOC 2 Type II: In progress

What Serpentine is not

Honest boundaries

Serpentine does not try to replace everything. These are the systems it complements.

Not an EDR

Serpentine does not deploy endpoint agents. Host-level process forensics, real-time syscall monitoring, and post-compromise endpoint hunting require a dedicated endpoint platform. Serpentine handles cloud, identity, and attack-surface coverage. The two are complementary.

Not a SIEM

Serpentine does not retain raw logs. The telemetry layer normalises cloud-audit and identity events into structured graph records — useful for correlation and reasoning, not for petabyte-scale search or custom rule authoring. Organisations needing full raw-log retention should run Serpentine alongside a dedicated SIEM.

Not a CSPM

A dedicated cloud-posture platform may have broader inventory coverage across dozens of cloud accounts. Serpentine prioritises depth over breadth: every finding it surfaces is graph-grounded, exploit-validated, and tied to a compliance obligation. For "which of these actually matters today?" rather than "how many misconfigs do we have?", Serpentine's model is the right one.

The Pilot

30 / 60 / 90 day framework

A structured pilot that proves value before commitment.

Day 30 — Coverage

  • Detection module connected to production assets
  • First OSINT enrichment loop running
  • Initial finding register delivered

Day 60 — Validation

  • Offensive validation on highest-priority findings
  • Hardening policy generated for two control gaps
  • First control-contradiction report delivered to your CISO

Day 90 — Evidence

  • Compliance mapping complete for chosen framework (SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / NIS2 / DORA)
  • First Istraga consequence analysis published
  • Pilot decision: continue, expand, or stop — your call

Pilot guarantee — if at day 90 the pilot has not produced audit-ready evidence on at least one framework, the pilot fee is refunded in full. Refund applies to the pilot engagement only; does not extend to subsequent commercial contracts.

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, evidence, and adversarial context that most teams never see.

30-minute technical walkthroughNo slides, real systemWe use your use case or ours