Reducing Defense Blind Spots

Problem

GenAI-powered attackers are shortening dwell times, leaving CISOs and SOCs struggling to secure every exposure point.

‍

Solution

Tuskira’s AI-driven analysis dynamically identifies and mitigates interconnected risks, relationships, and gaps in defenses.

‍

Result

Reduced attack surface and preemptive closure of exploitable gaps.

Does your compensating control actually stop the exploit?

Usually nobody knows. A WAF rule, an EDR policy, or a conditional access policy gets deployed to cover a vulnerability that can't be patched yet, and it's marked as mitigated. Whether it would block the specific exploit, on the specific path an attacker would take through your environment, never gets tested.

The only reliable answer comes from testing the control against that exploit on that path. Reading the configuration tells you what the control is set to do. Testing tells you what it would do when the attack arrives.

Four ways controls fail quietly

Misconfigured from day one

Rules ship in monitor mode, policies default to permissive, and nobody goes back to tighten them.

Drifted since deployment

Exceptions, exclusions, and emergency changes pile up until the policy no longer matches what anyone intended.

Missing where the path runs

The control exists, but not on the asset, identity, or network segment an attacker would actually traverse.

Deployed but bypassable

The control fires on the textbook technique and misses the variant an attacker would really use.

How to test whether a control stops an attack

Four steps answer the question for any control. Here's what each one takes, and how Tuskira runs it for you.

Map the real path

Start from the exposure and trace how an attacker would move from it to something that matters. Kairo chains exposures, identities, and control gaps into the breach paths that exist in your environment.

Find every control on it

List each control that sits on that path, along with its current configuration. The Security Data Fabric pulls that state from your tools through 150+ native integrations into a live digital twin.

Test each one against the exploit

Check whether each control would block the exploit pattern an attacker would use, including its variants. Tuskira's agents run that check for every control on every path, continuously.

Change it, then re-test

Apply the configuration change or compensating control that closes the path, then test again to prove it held. Tuskira recommends the change, deploys it through your existing tools with your approval, and re-tests.

Why this matters right now

AI-driven vulnerability research disclosed 1,596 verified vulnerabilities across 281 open-source projects in just 63 days, roughly 25 per day against a remediation rate near 1.5 per day. When patches can't keep pace, compensating controls are what stands between an exploit and the asset during the patch window, so they need to work. The full data is in our Patch Gap research report.

Control validation vs. other approaches

Configuration audits and posture tools

Check settings against benchmarks and best-practice baselines across your tools.

A compliant setting isn't proof that it stops a specific exploit, and findings aren't tied to the paths an attacker would take.

Breach and attack simulation

Run attack scenarios against deployed controls to see what gets through.

Most scenarios are generic and run on a schedule, and the output is a report someone still has to turn into a fix.

Tuskira control validation

Tests the controls on every real breach path in your environment, continuously, through a live digital twin.

Delivers the specific change that closes each path, deployed through tools you already own and re-tested to prove it held.

Compensating control and control validation FAQ

What is a compensating control?

A compensating control is a security measure put in place when the primary fix, usually a patch, can't be applied yet. In PCI DSS the term has a formal meaning, an alternative control that meets the intent of a requirement you can't satisfy as written. In day-to-day security operations it usually means a WAF rule, EDR policy, segmentation change, or access restriction that blocks an exploit until the patch ships.

How do you know if a compensating control is effective?

You test it against the specific exploit on the specific path it's meant to block, then re-test after any change. A control that looks correct in its configuration can still miss the variant an attacker would use or sit off the path entirely.

What is security control validation?

It's testing whether the security controls you've deployed would actually block the attacks they're meant to stop in your environment, instead of assuming they work because they're installed.

How is control validation different from breach and attack simulation?

Breach and attack simulation runs predefined attack scenarios against your controls. Tuskira starts from the breach paths that exist in your environment, tests every control on those paths, and delivers the change that closes each gap, then re-tests it.

Does Tuskira require new agents or replacing my security tools?

No. Tuskira connects to the tools you already run through 150+ native integrations, reads their configuration and policy state, and routes fixes back through those same tools.

Does Tuskira change my controls automatically?

Only as far as you allow. Policy decides whether each action is recommended, staged, or executed, and changes that matter go through human approval with a full execution log.

See which of your controls would stop the next attack

Tuskira maps the real breach paths in your environment and tests every control on them, using the tools you already own. It's the validation stage of agentic CTEM, where most programs stall.