Validate findings without re-fighting the investigation.
So what does Soarcery do for pen testing? Feed a finding into the same investigation loop that works every real alert, and get a replayable record of what your response would actually have caught.
A report proves a path in. It rarely proves what your SOC would have caught.
A pentest confirms an exploit worked. It does not usually show whether your detection and response would have found it, worked it correctly, and stopped it in time, so remediation debates happen without evidence either way.
A path in is not the whole story
The report proves the exploit worked. It says nothing about whether your detection and response would have caught it.
Remediation debates run on opinion
Without a record of what the response would have done, prioritization gets argued from instinct rather than evidence.
Findings age fast
By the time the retest happens, the environment has moved. The finding needed validating the week it landed.
Run the finding through the same loop as a real alert.
It investigates the finding like a real alert
Give the Familiar the entity or technique involved and it pulls the same context an analyst would: identity, endpoint, email, and cloud signals.
It shows the plan before it acts
The Familiar lays out what it would investigate, correlated against MITRE ATT&CK, so you can compare its plan against what the test actually did.
It hands you a receipt, not a guess
The output is a replayable record: what was detected, what was recommended, and exactly where the Seal would have stopped it, evidence attached.
The gaps become the fix list
Where the investigation would have missed, or the response would never have reached the Seal, you have a specific evidenced gap to close instead of a general worry.
Where the response would have stopped, and why.
Actual product. Demo data.
Every privileged action pauses for a human, marked with its blast radius. Running a finding through the loop shows you exactly which response would have been proposed, and precisely where it would have waited for a person.
The deliverable is a receipt: what was checked, what was decided, who approved it, and when. That is a defensible artifact for the retest conversation, rather than two teams recalling the same week differently.
Actual product. Demo data.
Validation with a paper trail.
- The finding runs through the same loop as a real alert, with no special casing.
- The plan is visible and correlated against MITRE ATT&CK, so you can compare it to what the test actually did.
- The Seal shows exactly where a consequential response would have stopped for a human.
- The output is a receipt, not a guess: replayable evidence of what your response would have caught.
Where else it earns its keep.
SOC (Security Operations)
Investigate every alert before a human has to.
CTI (Cyber Threat Intelligence)
A native verdict spread, not a single collapsed score.
Threat Hunting
Ask in plain English, get a real investigation back.
Breach and Attack Simulation
Measure the whole response, not just the detection.
Run your last finding through it.
A 30-minute walkthrough. Bring a recent finding and see what the response would have looked like.