Duplicates by tool
The same CVE in the same package shows up once per scanner and once per branch. Counting it is not triage.
Prioritise the exposure.
Not just the score.
Bring vulnerability findings into one graph. Trace them to affected images and running workloads so your team can prioritise with production context.
Investigation queue
Scanner result
Connected finding
Remediation case
Investigation context
01 / Consolidate
Bring related evidence together.
- Source tool
- Finding identity
Review findings in their application context instead of switching between scanner lists.
02 / Prioritise
Investigate the reason for priority.
- Affected asset
- Exposure evidence
Use available exposure and asset context to decide what deserves attention.
03 / Follow through
Stay connected through verification.
- Case ownership
- Verification state
Link the responsible team, remediation work and verification to the finding.
1
Logical finding per issue
Corroborating tool results join it instead of duplicating it.
12
Languages, native taint
Plus the per-language open-source tools, launched automatically.
Reach
Reachability verdicts
Reachable, unreachable or unknown, with the call path.
Human
Disposition
No AI status writes; every verdict carries a reason code.
The problem
Why does vulnerability management stall?
Five tools, five severity scales, five queues, and nobody can say which of the critical findings is reachable from the internet.
01
02
Severity without context
CVSS says how bad in the abstract; it cannot say whether the function is called or the workload is exposed.
03
Ownership by spreadsheet
Routing depends on a mapping somebody maintains by hand, so findings wait in a shared queue.
04
Closure by status flip
Findings are closed because someone said so, not because a scan proved it.
05
Fixes with no lineage
The fix merges, but nobody knows which images still carry the old package or where they run.
06
AI that rewrites verdicts
Automated triage that changes status silently destroys the audit trail.
How SecurityVault does it
How does SecurityVault prioritise vulnerabilities?
One queue with edges, not five lists: every finding sits on a graph that runs from code to image to cloud workload, correlated as each scan lands.
Ingest
The native engine plus semgrep, gitleaks, checkov, syft, grype and the per-language tools run in one scan. Imported findings from Wiz, Prisma Cloud, Tenable and Rapid7 resolve into the same model.
Resolve
Observations match existing findings by alias with a fixed precedence; agreement is recorded as corroboration. One issue, one logical finding.
Correlate
The same finding is one node with edges across the whole chain: the commit that introduced it, the container image it shipped in and the workload running that digest right now. A code fix, a stale image and a running instance are the same story, not three dashboards.
Rank
The risk model scores each finding from severity, exploit likelihood, reachability, exposure and business context, with an explanation for every score. Blast radius counts workloads and ingresses, not sibling findings.
Route
The owning team comes from ownership edges on the repository or resource. Pull-request comments and tickets carry the evidence, the reachability path and the remediation guidance. See routing vulnerability ownership by the graph.
Fix
Draft fix pull requests from deterministic templates, and remediation cases with rollout stages and simulation for larger changes. See remediation workflow and SLAs.
Close
Review the reason and evidence behind each lifecycle change. Successful scans can support closure where the rules permit; removing an asset from scope is recorded differently from verifying a fix. Human-held dispositions remain protected.
Outcomes
What changes for security and engineering teams?
01
A queue you can finish
Duplicates collapse and unreachable findings rank below exposed ones.
02
Owners on arrival
Each finding reaches the team that owns the code or resource, with evidence attached.
03
Closure you can prove
Inspect the recorded closure reason and supporting scan or scope change before reporting an issue as remediated.
04
Fixes traced to production
See which images still carry the old package and where they run.
06
An intact audit trail
Human-only disposition, enforced in the application and again in storage.
FAQ
Vulnerability management questions
- What is risk-based vulnerability management?
- Risk-based vulnerability management prioritises vulnerabilities by the risk they pose in your environment, not by severity score alone. It weighs whether the vulnerable code is reachable, whether the asset is exposed, how likely exploitation is and what the asset supports. Read ranking vulnerabilities by reachability.
- How does SecurityVault deduplicate findings from different scanners?
- The platform matches observations using finding identity and scope. Matching results add corroborating evidence to the same issue. Different assets, versions or incomplete source identifiers can require separate findings or review; sharing a CVE number alone is not enough to merge unrelated exposure.
- What does reachability mean here?
- For dependency vulnerabilities, reachability analysis checks whether your code calls the vulnerable function and keeps the call path as evidence. A finding is labelled reachable, unreachable or unknown, and "unknown" is never treated as safe. See reachability hint.
- Can I import findings from tools we already run?
- Yes. Findings from Wiz, Prisma Cloud, Tenable and Rapid7 InsightVM enter the shared findings model. Results with matching identity and scope can corroborate existing issues; ambiguous matches need review.
- Can AI close or change the status of a finding?
- AI can explain a finding and suggest a fix, but cannot write its status or disposition. Separate lifecycle rules can record closure from successful scan evidence or an asset leaving scope. The reason is recorded, and human-held dispositions are protected. Closure is not always evidence of a fix.
Related: SCA and SBOM · SAST · container image scanning · remediation SLAs · SecurityVault for AppSec teams · software composition analysis.
From the blog
Further reading on vulnerability management
- Scanner coverage: account for missing scan runsReview scanner coverage against expected assets, completed runs and evidence freshness, so a quiet findings queue does not conceal missing assessments.
- Vulnerability exceptions: review what changedReview vulnerability exceptions against changed assets, exposure and evidence, so a temporary acceptance does not quietly become permanent closure.
- Vulnerability ownership: make team handoffs explicitMake vulnerability ownership transfers explicit, with acceptance criteria, escalation and retained evidence so security work survives team changes.
- Vulnerability remediation: prove the fix is liveVerify vulnerability remediation from source change to deployed artefact, with clear closure criteria for rescans, rollout gaps and temporary mitigation.
See it on your stack
Bring one repository. Leave with a ranked queue.
A 30-minute session: one scan, one logical finding per issue, one lineage view, on your code.