Complete Platform

Unified Workbench

One canvas for the whole picture: your architecture, the threats on each component, the controls that answer them, and what the live cloud says about those controls.

Watch it run — sign-up to result

Stage 1 of 6

aribot · Unified Workbench

CanvasThreatsControlsFrameworksCloud resultsPosture

Components

on canvas

Threats

—

not measured yet

Controls in scope

—

not measured yet

Controls with a result

—

not measured yet

Architecture canvas

trust boundary shown

Useryou do this step

Add the architecture

GOES IN

Diagram or drawing

COMES OUT

working…

ILLUSTRATIVE SEED DATA — NOT CUSTOMER DATA

22 components, 34 links

Run log

t+0.0s [User] Add the architecture

working on: Diagram or drawing

The problem

Threat models live in documents and go stale the day after the review. The architecture moves, the model does not, and nobody notices until an audit asks.

The threat model, the scanner results and the compliance framework each hold a different view of the same system, so a component's real status has to be assembled by hand from three places.

Because nothing is joined, a control's status is usually an assertion rather than evidence — someone ticked it once, and no scan has ever confirmed it.

What Aribot does

Components, data flows and trust boundaries sit on one canvas, and everything else attaches to them rather than living alongside.
Threats are derived per component using STRIDE, PASTA and MITRE ATT&CK, so each finding points at a specific part of the system.
Controls answer specific threats, and frameworks reuse that same derivation instead of a separate mapping exercise each.
Connected cloud accounts test those controls against real resources; a scan result outranks a manual assertion.
The posture header states coverage per source — code, cloud, dynamic and account — so it is clear which evidence is behind the number.
Untested controls stay visibly untested, and value at risk is computed for the diagram you are looking at rather than apportioned from an estate total.

Watch the recorded demo

2:05

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

Who this is for

An architect at design review

When it comes up

The threat model is a document that was accurate on the day it was written, and the architecture moved the following sprint.

What changes

Threats attach to components on the canvas, so a change to the architecture shows which findings it touched.

A security engineer chasing evidence

When it comes up

The threat model, the scanner and the compliance framework each hold a partial view, and joining them is a manual afternoon.

What changes

Controls answer specific threats and cloud results attach to those controls, so a component's status is assembled once.

A team lead reporting upward

When it comes up

A single posture percentage invites the question 'out of what', and there is no good answer.

What changes

Coverage is broken out by evidence source — code, cloud, dynamic, account — beside the score.

Illustrative example — not customer data

Threats on canvas

derived per component, not per estate

54%

Coverage

code 23 · cloud 21 · dynamic 11 · account 48

$1.0M

Value at risk

modelled for this diagram

12%

Framework alignment

across the frameworks in scope

In the product

1
Bring in the architecture
Upload a diagram or compose one on the canvas. Components and trust boundaries become the structure everything attaches to.
2
See threats per component
Each component carries its own threats with the reasoning kept, so a reviewer can disagree with a specific finding rather than the whole model.
3
Follow a threat to its controls
Select a threat and the controls that answer it are shown, along with the frameworks those controls satisfy.
4
Test against the live cloud
Connected accounts evaluate the controls against real resources. Results attach to the specific control and resource, and a scan outranks an assertion.
5
Read the posture header honestly
Coverage is broken out by evidence source, and controls with no result are shown as untested rather than folded into the score.

Explore each one

Code Review & Analysis

Paste code and get findings tied to the lines that produced them.

CXO Workbench

The same evidence, summarised for a board.

How It Works

The whole path, from architecture to a verified fix.

Book a walkthrough All demos

Why teams use this

Use cases and case studies

Use case

Architecture, threats, controls and cloud evidence on one canvas

One canvas joins your architecture, the threats on each component, the controls that answer them and what your live cloud says about those controls.

Read the use case One-pager Carousel

Case study · Aribot threat modeling

From a request form to a signed-off threat model

frameworks the intake can scope automatically, including ISO 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, SOC 2 and NIST CSF 2.0

15 min

between ServiceNow and Aribot ticket reconciliations, on top of instant webhooks

By industry

Every payment API in your code, ranked by risk
Aribot lists every endpoint in your code, ranks the risky ones and maps the fixes to PCI DSS, so security review keeps pace with releases.
A threat model and an SBOM for every release
Aribot produces the design-stage threat model and the SBOM regulators expect, from your architecture and code, and keeps both current release to release.

All use cases and case studies