Security Posture / Overview Last scan: 4m ago CLOUD COVERAGE Azure 87% 247 / 284 resources compliant 37 findings Subscriptions: 3 AWS 66% 188 / 285 resources compliant 97 findings Accounts: 2 GCP 91% 411 / 451 resources compliant 40 findings Projects: 4 FINDINGS Filter by severity SEVERITY FINDING RESOURCE PROVIDER STATUS CRITICAL NSG allows all inbound from internet nsg-prod-frontend · port 0-65535 open to 0.0.0.0/0 prod-vnet Azure Open WARNING Overly permissive security group sg-web-servers · inbound 0.0.0.0/0 on port 22 vpc-prod AWS Open WARNING Storage bucket public access enabled gs://prod-data-exports · allUsers read access gcp-prod-vpc GCP Review INFO Firewall rule shadowed by higher-priority rule nsg-backend · rule #200 unreachable due to rule #100 nsg-backend Azure Info 3 Critical · 8 Warnings · 14 Info 174 passing checks
Security Posture

Continuous coverage, prioritised by real risk

Most posture tools generate mountains of findings without knowing whether the affected resource is internet-reachable or isolated. The result is alert fatigue, not risk reduction. Siriqo scores findings against your actual network exposure profile so you can act on what matters first.

  • Continuous sync — no scan windows to wait for
  • Mapped to CIS, NIST, and other frameworks
  • Exposure-weighted priority, not flat severity scores
  • Unified view across all cloud providers

The problem organisations face

Security posture tools generate findings. Most organisations struggle not with finding issues — but knowing which ones to fix first.

Alert fatigue from thousands of low-context findings

Most CSPM tools score findings against benchmarks without knowing whether the affected resource is internet-reachable or isolated. Thousands of alerts, no actionable priority.

Infrastructure changes faster than posture checks run

Scheduled scans miss configuration drift. A misconfiguration introduced by an auto-scaling event can sit undetected for days.

Cross-cloud posture has no single owner

AWS, Azure, and GCP each have their own security tooling. A consistent posture view requires manual aggregation that nobody does consistently.

Compliance frameworks don't map to actual risk

A "critical" CIS finding on an air-gapped system is less urgent than a "low" finding on an internet-facing payment service.

What you get

  • Continuous posture monitoring

    No scan windows. Siriqo detects configuration drift as it happens.

  • Framework alignment

    Findings mapped to CIS, NIST, and other frameworks with clear control references for audit teams.

  • Exposure-weighted prioritisation

    A misconfiguration on an internet-facing resource ranks higher than the same finding on an isolated internal VM.

  • Cross-cloud unified view

    A single posture dashboard across all providers — no context-switching between native cloud security centres.