We assess security risk over a graph of your assets, their dependencies and their criticality, so that the posture of the estate is computed from a model that is kept true, not estimated in a register that is kept by hand.
The register and its limits
A risk register lists assets and scores each one. It is indispensable and it is flat. It cannot express that a low-value server is the only route to a high-value database, or that a change to one identity provider alters the exposure of everything that trusts it. Those facts are relationships, and a table has nowhere to put them.
Assets as nodes, exposure as paths
In a graph, an asset is a node with a class and a criticality, and its relationships are edges: hosts, connects to, authenticates against, stores. An attack path is then a path in the graph, and the exposure of any asset is the set of paths that reach it. When a relationship changes, the paths change with it, and so does the assessment, without anyone re-scoring a row.
Compliance frameworks mapped to the same graph
We map the controls of the frameworks you answer to onto the classes and relationships of the model. A control that requires encryption of stored personal data applies to every node of that class, and the evidence that it is met is read from the same graph the infrastructure reconciles against. Your compliance mapping becomes a query, and the gaps it finds are precise.
Prioritisation that follows criticality
Because criticality and dependency are in the model, remediation can be ordered by what actually reduces exposure to what matters. Your security posture is evaluated and managed from a continuously updated model of asset criticality and interrelationships, which is the only basis on which prioritisation can be defended.
