Skip to content
REDMAW

Use case

Security validation

Move from possible exposure to proven exposure by testing whether a weakness can actually create unauthorized access, data exposure or another material security outcome.

The challenge

Where assumptions break down

Security programs collect many signals that something may be wrong. A vulnerable version, weak configuration, exposed secret or risky permission is useful information, but it does not always tell the team whether an attacker can use it in context. When possibility and proven exploitability are treated the same, engineering attention is spread across findings with very different consequences.

How RedMaw approaches it

  1. 01RedMaw starts with authorized discovery across supported attack surfaces.
  2. 02It attempts controlled adversarial validation rather than promoting every observation into a confirmed finding.
  3. 03A finding becomes materially stronger when RedMaw can reproduce the security outcome and preserve the evidence.
  4. 04The evidence records the target, technique, result and remediation context in the same security state.
  5. 05Findings can be routed into Jira, GitHub Issues, Slack or email while RedMaw remains the source of security truth.
  6. 06After remediation, the relevant validation runs again to determine whether the exposure is actually gone.

Outcome

What changes

Possible exposure is separated from validated exposure.
Engineering can prioritize evidence-backed security outcomes.
Security teams can reproduce how a finding was proven.
Remediation history remains tied to the original technical evidence.
Closure reflects the retest result rather than assumption.

Stop assuming you are secure. Prove it.

Continuously test what an attacker can actually reach across your applications, SaaS identities, internal infrastructure and AI systems.