Back to Demos
Executive

CXO Workbench

The security estate in the language a board actually uses: exposure in currency, coverage as a fraction, and a clear line between what was tested and what was assumed.

Watch it run — sign-up to result

Stage 1 of 5
aribot · CXO Workbench
OverviewRiskBusinessRegulationSimulationsSourcesAttack SurfaceEconomicComplianceWar GamePath to GreenGovernance

What matters most across security, money and audit — at a glance

Strategic Risk Summary
awaiting scope

Diagrams

—

not measured yet

Components

—

not measured yet

Open Threats

—

not measured yet

Compliance

—

not measured yet

Annual Cost

—

not measured yet

Open Remediations

—

not measured yet

Is the number trustworthy?
Control effectiveness—

nothing evaluated in scope yet

Control coverage—

nothing evaluated in scope yet

— controls not evaluated — excluded from the score, not counted as passing

Weakest evaluated controls

Nothing ranked yet — a control with no result has no effectiveness to rank.

3 executives invited to a read-only workspace — no admin rights granted

Useryou do this step

Invite the board view

GOES IN

Executive user

COMES OUT

working…

ILLUSTRATIVE SEED DATA — NOT CUSTOMER DATA

3 execs, no admin rights

Run log
t+0.0s [User] Invite the board view
working on: Executive user

The problem

Security reporting arrives as control counts and severity tallies. A board cannot act on 'we have 344 controls' — it needs to know what is at risk, in money, and whether the number is trustworthy.
Most posture dashboards cannot separate 'we tested this and it passed' from 'we never tested this'. Both render as a green tile, and only one of them is a reason to relax.
A percentage without its denominator hides the estate. '100% compliant' across two controls out of three hundred is true, and useless, and it is the version executives are usually shown.

What Aribot does

  • Value at risk is computed per diagram from the actual threat model, not apportioned from a total, so a business unit's number belongs to that business unit.
  • Control effectiveness and control coverage are always shown together. Effectiveness is the share of EVALUATED controls that pass; coverage is the share of controls that have any result at all.
  • Untested controls are excluded from the effectiveness denominator and reported separately. A control nobody tested did not pass and did not fail.
  • When nothing in scope has been evaluated, the figure reads 'not evaluated' rather than 0% or 100% — both of those are verdicts, and neither has been earned.
  • Scope follows the diagram you select, so a figure under a business unit's name is computed from that unit's systems and nothing else.
  • Every headline figure states its basis in the same view: how many were evaluated, how many were not, and across how many systems.

Watch the recorded demo

4:10

The run above is interactive. This is the same ground walked through on video, if you would rather watch than click.

Other cuts of this

More on the Ayurak AI channel.

Who this is for

A CISO preparing a board paper

When it comes up

The board meets in nine days and asks the same question every quarter: are we more or less exposed than last time, and how much is it worth.

What changes

The exposure figure carries the diagram it was computed from, and the pack states how many controls were never evaluated instead of leaving them inside the score.

A risk lead who inherited the estate

When it comes up

Three business units, three sets of numbers, and no way to tell which are measured and which were asserted by whoever owned the spreadsheet.

What changes

Effectiveness and coverage are shown together per scope, so an untested unit reads as untested rather than as a healthy 100%.

An audit sponsor

When it comes up

The auditor asks how a control was verified and the honest answer is that nobody is sure whether it was tested or ticked.

What changes

Every control shows whether a scan produced its status, and controls with no result are listed rather than folded into the total.

Illustrative example — not customer data

$1.0M
Value at risk
modelled from threats on the selected diagram
62%
Control effectiveness
of controls that were evaluated
18%
Control coverage
controls with any result — shown beside effectiveness, never alone
281
Not evaluated
excluded from the effectiveness denominator

In the product

  1. 1
    Pick the scope
    Select an architecture diagram or business unit. The figures recompute for that scope — the label and the number always describe the same thing.
  2. 2
    Read exposure in currency
    Value at risk is derived from the threats modelled on those systems, with the basis shown alongside so the figure can be interrogated rather than taken on faith.
  3. 3
    Check coverage before effectiveness
    The progress bar tracks coverage, not effectiveness. A full bar next to a high score would imply the estate is tested; coverage is the number that qualifies the other one.
  4. 4
    Drill into the weakest controls
    Ranked worst-first among controls that were actually evaluated. Untested controls are listed separately — they have no effectiveness to rank.
  5. 5
    Export the board pack
    The same figures, the same basis lines, and an explicit statement of what was not measured.
Book a walkthrough All demos

Why teams use this

Use cases and case studies

Use case

Show the board exposure in currency, with coverage

Aribot prices security exposure per system and shows, beside every score, how many controls were tested, so the board can see what the figure rests on.

Read the use case One-pager Carousel

Case study · AI cost · Customer zero

150 paid AI calls a night, down to a handful

~150 → 4–7
paid model calls in the nightly cost run, before the fix and on the first two nights after
$4.85 → $0.26
cost of that run on the last night before, and the higher of the first two nights after

By industry

All use cases and case studies