NEW

Start with the pressure: sales, launch, abuse, agents, data, or guardrails

SecEng Workbench - Attack Path Chaining (APC)

From isolated findings to defensible attack chains.

Most security reports stop at individual findings. APC asks the harder question: which findings can actually combine into a meaningful adversary path?

Four-stage review

01

Grounded core

Build only from company-specific evidence: findings, CVEs, exposed credentials, runtime evidence, code paths, authority relationships, and other supported security intelligence.

02

Precedent-backed extensions

Where direct evidence ends, model clearly labeled earlier or later TTP hypotheses using supported real-world adversary sequencing. Inference never becomes a grounded finding.

03

Independent validation

Separate validators challenge evidence grounding, ATT&CK mapping, sequence plausibility, and unsupported assumptions before the chain advances.

04

Break the chain

Rank the controls that collapse the most paths. Connect validated chains to remediation chokepoints, D3FEND mappings, retest conditions, and FAIR-aligned risk reasoning.

Grounded where we know. Explicit where we infer.

Grounded core

Every grounded step must trace to company-specific evidence and a supported ATT&CK mapping.

Speculative extensions

Possible earlier or later steps are clearly labeled, confidence-scored, and supported by real-world adversary precedent. They are never silently promoted to grounded findings.

What APC returns

validated attack clusters
grounded vs speculative step labels
MITRE ATT&CK mapping
Attack Flow JSON
ATT&CK Navigator layers
FAIR-aligned risk bands and drivers
remediation chokepoints
retest conditions
analyst-review status and evidence trail

Scope note

APC performs defensive attack-path analysis at the tactic-technique-procedure level. It does not generate exploit code, payloads, credential material, or step-by-step intrusion instructions.

GroundingValidationATT&CKFAIRAnalyst review