Saner Cloud Security Risk Prioritization
Turn cloud risk into a ranked plan
Saner CSRP turns cloud findings into SSVC-driven action outcomes, maps each risk to MITRE ATT&CK, and ranks what matters first using exploitability, technical impact, mission criticality, automation potential, and affected resource context.
How it works
Powered by SecPod & USI
Saner CSRP is built on a decision-led risk framework, not severity sorting. It buckets findings into SSVC outcomes — Act, Attend, Track*, Track — and lets you drill into the “why” behind each call, including the decision tree. MITRE ATT&CK mapping adds adversary context, so teams can defend priorities and move straight into the next fix-first sequence
Your first 30 days with Saner
From deployment to measurable risk reduction — here is what to expect.
A ranked queue replaces the severity pile
CSRP sorts findings into Act, Attend, Track*, and Track from the first view, so teams start with an action order instead of a backlog argument.
Priorities become easier to defend
Decision trees, exploitability context, technical impact, and MITRE ATT&CK mapping make each priority easier to explain in reviews, approvals, and change windows.
Business context starts reshaping the queue
Mission-critical values, resource tags, alerts, and remediation linkage help the backlog reflect real consequence, not just raw scanner output.
Key Features
Everything you need to stay ahead of threats.
SSVC-based action outcomes
Replace flat severity sorting with action categories teams can actually use.
CSRP classifies findings into Act, Attend, Track*, and Track so the queue becomes operational from the start. That gives teams a more repeatable way to decide what needs immediate remediation, what needs planned attention, and what belongs under closer or routine monitoring. The value here is not only clarity. It is consistency. Security teams, platform teams, and approvers can work from the same action language instead of renegotiating every “critical” issue from scratch.
Decision tree and further examination
Make every priority easier to justify, review, and challenge with evidence.
Each prioritized risk can be opened into a decision tree that shows the dependencies and contributing factors behind its classification. A deeper examination path extends that into a risk summary that traces exploitation flow, technical impact, mission effect, and available remediation. That gives teams a usable explanation layer for approvals and triage discussions, while also making it easier to understand what would need to change for a finding to move into a different action bucket.
MITRE ATT&CK mapping with remediation linkage
Connect every prioritized risk to attacker behavior and a clearer defense path.
CSRP maps risks to MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations so prioritization reflects more than internal scoring. Teams can see which attacker objectives and methods align to the risk, which assets and regions are exposed, and which mitigation strategies are relevant. The same view also links to remediation through the Fix path, which means ATT&CK context is not isolated from operational follow-through. It feeds directly into action.
Exploitability, automatable, and technical impact analysis
Rank risk using likelihood, automation potential, and consequence together.
CSRP breaks risk into factors that materially change prioritization. Exploitability shows how likely a finding is to be leveraged. Automatable reflects whether an attacker can reliably automate exploitation events at scale. Technical impact distinguishes between limited control and full control, while deeper risk details cover confidentiality, integrity, availability, scope, privileges required, and attack vector. That gives teams a far more credible basis for sequencing remediation than a severity number on its own.
Mission-critical and resource-category weighting
Let operational consequence change the queue before the wrong asset reaches the top.
CSRP lets teams mark resources as essential, support, or minimal, then view how prioritized risks land across those resource groups. It also provides focused views for essential resources and heat-map style distribution across resource types such as compute, storage, databases, analytics, and security and compliance. That structure helps teams bring business continuity into prioritization without flattening the queue around raw finding volume.
Tag-driven prioritization across resource context
Sort risk by business, data, and public exposure context, not only by scanner output.
Business centric, data centric, and publicly accessible tags let teams refine prioritization around the kinds of resources a finding actually affects. Filtering by tags makes large queues easier to work through during focused remediation cycles, especially when teams are responsible for specific business domains, exposed systems, or data-heavy environments. That makes the backlog more navigable and more aligned to real ownership.
CCSS risk intelligence and reference-backed analysis
Open each finding into a structured risk profile with technical detail and references.
CSRP supports a detailed CCSS breakdown for each risk, including scores, impact measures, exploitation probability, automation potential, attack vector characteristics, impact assessment, and supporting references. That is useful when an engineer or reviewer needs to move past the top-level queue and inspect the mechanics of a finding before acting on it. It also gives governance and security teams a more standardized way to explain why a risk is placed where it is.
Reports, alerts, and audit trails around prioritization
Operationalize prioritization with reporting, notifications, and traceability.
CSRP includes canned and custom report views, risk-based alerts, and audit logs tied to scans and configuration changes. Teams can send notifications based on Act, Attend, or Track conditions, scope alerts to all or essential resources, generate focused visualizations for reporting, and review activity logs for scan starts, scan failures, completed runs, and configuration updates. That makes prioritization something teams can run as an ongoing program, not a dashboard they visit once a week.