Portal
When you want the whole picture.
The full scenario library, evidence trail, exercise planning and the export your auditor asks for.
The evidence layer for security & compliance teams
Everyone makes decisions. Not everyone proves they made the right ones.
Venation helps security and risk teams identify the threats that matter, decide what to do next and keep the reasoning and evidence together. Delivered where your team already works.
- Slack
- Teams
- Portal
- Claude
- MCP
Trusted where being wrong is expensive
I stopped forwarding threat reports to my team. Dedicated scenarios now arrive in our channel already sorted, and the audit trail writes itself.
THE PROBLEM
Too much threat information. Too little clarity.
Teams are overwhelmed by information, not short of it. Leaders need scenario-based evidence: what could happen, where you are exposed, and what to fix.
Many signals and sources
Fewer, relevant scenarios
Clear decisions and evidence
- 01
Information overload
Feeds, reports, alerts and audit questions pile up while board expectations rise and resources shrink.
- 02
No clear risk logic
Work is spread across tools and teams, with no shared view of which risks matter most.
- 03
Evidence comes too late
Evidence is usually reconstructed after incidents, or produced under pressure during audits.
THE SOLUTION
From compliance theatre to proving resilience.
NIS2, DORA and the Cyber Resilience Act require critical and regulated European firms, and the suppliers they depend on, to test themselves against realistic attack scenarios and show their reasoning. Most build those scenarios by hand, once a year, and they go stale instantly. Venation keeps them current, integrates in your workflow, ranks what matters as threats shift, and leaves you the evidence when the regulator asks.
WHAT WE DELIVER
Curated once. Held in one core. Installed where you work.
A three-step pipeline: scenarios, threat actors and evidence are curated once as structured content; they converge into a single platform core staffed by agents and human analysts; from there the same material is delivered out to Slack, Teams, WhatsApp, MCP and the portal.
The work is done once and lands many times. Curation produces structured content rather than documents, the core is the single place that content is reasoned about, and integration is what puts it in front of the person who has to act, without asking them to open anything new.
- scenarios
- threat actors
- evidence
structured, versioned, reviewed
platform core
agentic + human analysts
One source, delivered to
- Slack
- Teams
- MCP
- Portal
STEP ONE
Curation
Content as code.
Ready for everything.
STEP TWO
Distribution
One platform core.
Agentic + Human Services.
STEP THREE
Integration
Installed in the end-user workflow.
From global threat information to decisions that matter to you.
One relevant scenario. A clear next step. The reasoning and evidence connected.
Hundreds of fragments arrive each week. Only some describe a threat to you.
Actor
Ransomware affiliate
Region
Western Europe
Technique
Valid accounts via supplier access
Sector
Retail
Vector
Phishing campaign
Sector
Financial services
Technique
Exploited VPN appliance
Vector
Remote management tool
Actor
Hacktivist group
Then it arrives where you work.
The same scenario, in the channel you choose.
Venation workspaceSearch
14 September
VenationAPP
Microsoft TeamsSearch
14 September
Venation
Relevant to you: Ransomware via third-party vendor compromise
Why: Tier 1 supplier holds standing admin access into production.
Gap: backup isolation evidence needs validation.
Validate scenario evidence with the Tier 1 vendor
Reply
Venationonline14 September
Venation
Ransomware via third-party vendor compromise is relevant to you. Your Tier 1 supplier holds standing admin access.
Backup isolation evidence still needs validating.
Who owns that?
Head of Third-Party Risk. Want me to open it and assign, due 12 Oct?
Is ransomware via third-party vendor compromise relevant to us?
Relevant to you: Ransomware via third-party vendor compromise
Why: Tier 1 supplier holds standing admin access into production.
Gap: backup isolation evidence needs validation.
Validate scenario evidence with the Tier 1 vendor
EV-2026-0914
// your assistant, via MCP
> venation.scenario("ransomware via supplier")
{
"scenario": "Ransomware via third-party vendor compromise",
"relevance": "high",
"because": [
"tier-1 supplier with standing admin access",
"EU operations, regulated customers"
],
"gap": "backup isolation evidence not validated",
"last_reviewed": "2026-09-14",
"evidence_ref": "EV-2026-0914"
}Venation3.2 · Third-party resilienceSupplier ransomware exposure
- Scenario
- Ransomware via third-party vendor compromise
- Assessed
- 14 Sep 2026
- Owner
- Head of Third-Party Risk
- Finding
- Backup isolation evidence not validated at Tier 1 supplier.
- Action
- Validation requested 14 Sep, due 12 Oct.
- Evidence
- EV-2026-0914, assembled automatically from the decision trail.
One scenario. You pick the surface.
For entities with threat-led testing requirements
Your threat intelligence report was accurate on the day it arrived.
Every threat-led test starts with a Targeted Threat Intelligence report. Weeks of analyst work, a set of scenarios, and a PDF. Then the test runs, the report is filed, and the threat landscape carries on without it. At the next cycle, someone builds it again from scratch. We have a better way.
Today · one test cycle
- TTI report delivered
- Test performed
- Report rebuilt from scratch
Report filed, scenarios age, nothing updates (≈ 10 months)
With Venation · the same cycle
Scenarios reviewed every 90 days
Updated within 5 working days of a material change
The next test starts from something that is already current
The report you already buy. Current all year.
You choose where we work. We don't ask you to come to us.
WHAT “CURRENT” MEANS TO US
Everyone says their content is up to date. Ours is in the contract.
Reviewed on a schedule. Re-scored as threats move. Every judgement traceable.
- Scenario review
- At least every 90 days, with the date on the page.
- Material threat change
- Reaches affected clients within 5 working days.
- Sector targeting
- A named actor triggers a relevance re-score within 48 hours.
- Relevance decisions
- Each cites at least one fact from your environment profile.
- Scenario mapping
- ECB TTI structure, ATT&CK and your register category.
- Analyst sign-off
- Every judgement signed by a named senior analyst, recorded in the trail.
Start with a First Evidence Pack.
A human-led engagement that checks whether you are focused on the right cyber risks, and turns that judgement into evidence leadership, regulators, auditors and customers can trust.
Discuss First Evidence PackWhat you receive
- Scenario-based evidence review
- Risk tolerance and priority alignment summary
- Relevant cyber scenarios evidence pack
- Evidence gap view
- Board and audit-ready findings
- Recommended next actions
- Expert analyst support
How it helps
You see which scenarios matter most for your business, where current proof is too weak, and what to sustain, validate, reallocate or escalate next.
What happens next
- We scope what triggered the need.
- We validate your assumptions against relevant scenarios.
- We shape the evidence pack and define the next move.