AI makes attackers faster.
Reconnaissance, payload variation, and attack iteration can increasingly be automated—compressing the time defenders have to respond.
THREAT VELOCITYAttackers are moving at AI speed. Security should too. We're building an autonomous system that finds real vulnerabilities, helps fix them, and keeps checking that the defenses hold.
AI accelerates the attacker's work—and expands the code businesses must defend. Finding a weakness is only half the problem. Someone still has to prove, fix, and retest it.
Reconnaissance, payload variation, and attack iteration can increasingly be automated—compressing the time defenders have to respond.
THREAT VELOCITYAI-assisted teams ship more code, integrations, and changes. Security coverage must keep pace with the new complexity.
EXPANDING SURFACEScanners create tickets. Engineers juggle backlogs. Too often the hardest work—validated remediation—remains unfinished.
CLOSURE GAPA coordinated agent flywheel turns a broad security mission into scoped investigations, independently checked findings, and fix-ready work—then feeds new tests back into monitoring.
Scoped research agents examine code, configuration, dependencies, and newly disclosed threats, creating traceable hypotheses—not unverified alerts.
Freedom to research. Boundaries at execution. Models can reason and propose; deterministic controls enforce scope, sandbox isolation, and approvals.
Four connected advantages. One aim: get from suspected weakness to a verified outcome with less manual friction.
Self-hosted, high-capability open-weight workers investigate authorized targets. The models don't control permissions: a separate executor enforces them.
Structured task graphs, parallel investigations, coordination, and reusable playbooks turn each engagement into a smarter starting point for the next.
Independent model families challenge findings. Isolated retesting—not AI consensus—decides whether a vulnerability is confirmed.
Security checks are verified, not assumed. Canary tests, missed-run alerts, remediation status, and monitoring signals share one accountable view.
Model-agnostic by design.
Evidence-driven by default.
Vulnerability management doesn't end when a ticket closes. Every verified fix should become a regression test, every important control should produce fresh evidence, and missing monitoring should never look healthy.
We're shaping focused pilots with software teams. One agreed scope. Clear technical success criteria. Independent evidence of what was found, fixed, and verified.
Define one application, allowed tests, access boundaries, success criteria, and approvals.
Run coordinated reviews in approved environments, challenge findings, and reproduce issues.
Deliver patch proposals, tests, an evidence pack, and measurable closure economics.
Interested in evaluating CIPHERLOOP against your application? Prepare a pilot introduction here.
Only within explicitly authorized scope. We favor isolated test environments and reproducible, non-destructive validation; any production testing requires a separate agreed rules-of-engagement process.
No. Models propose and challenge findings. Deterministic controls govern execution; independent tests establish evidence; qualified humans retain approval authority over reporting and consequential changes.
Data processing is designed to be configurable per engagement, including locally hosted model options. Any third-party model access would require customer approval and appropriate data-handling arrangements.
CIPHERLOOP is currently a product concept being developed from existing internal agent-coordination and monitoring systems. This website describes the intended platform and invites conversations about tightly scoped design-partner pilots.