A new advisory, an emerging technique, or a signal from an intelligence source.
← ALL AGENTS / THREAT RADARRead the signals.
TRTHREAT INTELLIGENCE
Read the signals.
See what matters.
We’re building Threat Radar to examine threat information, investigate its relevance to the systems you operate, and bring useful context to the signals worth your attention.
In developmentThreat Radar / Planned product
THE INVESTIGATION MODELCONCEPT / 3D
CONTEXT INEVIDENCE OUTPURPOSE-BUILT SECURITY AGENT.DRAG TO INSPECT
THREAT RADAR / PLANNED FOCUS
Threat contextRelevant signalsInvestigation
01 / WHERE THREAT CONTEXT GOES MISSINGThreat Radar
An alert without context is another task.
A threat report describes a risk in the world. Your team still has to work out whether the affected technology is deployed, whether the conditions apply, and what to check first.
THE INVESTIGATION QUESTION
The source, the affected versions, the exposure conditions, and the systems that might need attention.
TR / A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEWCONCEPTUAL
Potential pathConceptual view · Threat intelligence
Volume can bury relevance. Without environment context, teams spend time investigating signals that may not match their exposure.
The source, the affected versions, the exposure conditions, and the systems that might need attention.
02 / PLANNED CAPABILITIESBuilt to go
Built to go
a layer deeper.
The work we’re designing Threat Radar to do.
Scope and availability will evolve as we build.
Collect relevant context
Work from an agreed inventory of systems and technologies.
Investigate incoming signals
Examine emerging advisories and threat information for relevance to that inventory.
Explain what to check
Surface why a signal matters and the investigation or mitigation worth considering.
Give the agent context.
Your technology inventory, relevant exposures, and the intelligence topics you want to follow.
Bring back something useful.
Attributable threat context, relevant advisories, and checks worth investigating.
THE BOUNDARY
Inputs stay within an agreed scope. Findings and proposed actions are designed for your team to review. Exact integrations and data handling requirements will be defined as the product develops.
03 / AN EXAMPLE INVESTIGATIONFrom a signal
From a signal
to a next step.
A conceptual example of the workflow we’re designing. This is an illustration, not a live scan or product output.
TR / INVESTIGATION NOTEILLUSTRATIVE
New advisory matches your stack
threat report → environment inventory- OBSERVATION
- An advisory references a technology in the tracked inventory.
- INVESTIGATE
- Verify affected versions, exposure conditions, and source reliability.
- NEXT STEP
- Check the deployed version and relevant mitigations.
Planned workflow for Threat Radar. Inputs, integrations, and supported actions will evolve during development.
ANIMATED 3D WORKFLOW / CONCEPT
A conceptual workflow for Threat Radar. Select a stage to highlight the part of the investigation it supports.
Describe the environment
Define the technologies and exposures you want the agent to follow.
Connect the signals
The agent investigates relevant threat information against that context.
Decide the response
Your team reviews the supporting sources and recommended follow-up.
Where Threat Radar
fits.
Your team needs to connect outside threat information to its technology inventory and exposed systems.
For the package-level path from an advisory to a tested upgrade, Dependency Armor narrows the investigation.
DADependency ArmorThese are planned areas of focus. Cross-agent integrations and supported workflows are still being defined.
05 / A FEW QUESTIONSBefore you
Before you
ask.
Can I use Threat Radar today?+
Threat Radar is in development. We’re open to early conversations about your use case and can share progress as the product takes shape.
Will this automatically block threats?+
Automatic blocking is not a launch promise. The planned focus is relevant intelligence and investigation with clear evidence for your team.
What intelligence sources will it use?+
Source coverage is still being developed. We want evidence to remain attributable so teams can evaluate the basis of each finding.