Security tool consolidation
one record, no orphaned history
Most security programmes accumulate a stack of overlapping tools: a vulnerability scanner, a ticket queue, a shared drive of reports, a compliance spreadsheet, a credential vault, and a chat channel where decisions actually get made. Consolidate that stack onto one engagement record so findings, scans, evidence, decisions, owners, and audit trail live in the same place rather than scattered across systems that never reconcile.
No credit card required. Free plan available forever.
Run security tool consolidation as a record migration, not a licence audit
Most security programmes do not start out fragmented. They drift there over years as new scanners, ticket queues, spreadsheets, drives, and chat channels each solve a single problem and never get retired afterward. By the time the programme has ten clients, twenty engagements, or a hundred open findings, the queue lives in five places and none of them agree. Tool consolidation is the workflow that turns that drift back into one operational record without losing the history that justifies the prior decisions.
This is the workflow view of consolidation. For the broader argument that scanning, triage, prioritisation, remediation, and reporting belong on one orchestration layer rather than scattered across systems, read the security workflow orchestration research. For the specific decision against spreadsheets, read the SecPortal vs spreadsheets comparison. For the specific decision against running security findings inside an engineering ticket queue, read the SecPortal vs Jira comparison.
Six symptoms that a security stack has drifted into sprawl
Sprawl rarely announces itself. It shows up as the cumulative weight of a dozen small decisions to keep the existing tool because migrating it felt expensive. The six symptoms below recur whenever the operational queue, the audit evidence, and the leadership view derive from different sources. Each one is invisible at the time and visible at the next breach, audit, or post-incident review.
Findings live in five places at once
The vulnerability scanner stores its native record. The triage spreadsheet stores a curated subset. The ticket queue stores the remediation work. The shared drive stores the report PDFs. The chat channel stores the actual decision about whether the finding was real and what the team did about it. Each system is incomplete on its own and none of them reconcile to the same total at the end of the quarter.
Audit evidence is reauthored at audit week
The compliance spreadsheet that was current six months ago no longer matches the live findings record. The audit team spends a week stitching the two together by hand. By the time the binder ships, the underlying findings have moved and the binder is already out of date. Recurring audit drift is the most expensive symptom of tool sprawl, because every cycle pays the migration cost without ever finishing the migration.
Scanner output never finishes the journey to remediation
The scanner imports finish at a CSV download. A human carries the CSV into the spreadsheet. Another human carries the spreadsheet into the ticket queue. By the time engineering picks up the ticket, the original scanner evidence is two transformations away. When the retest comes, the original CVSS vector has been replaced with a free-text "high" and the audit cannot tell whether the finding closed or simply got lost.
Compliance mapping is a parallel universe
A separate compliance spreadsheet maps controls to evidence. The findings record does not feed it. The mapping is updated quarterly at best. The day the auditor asks how the SOC 2 CC7.1 evidence reconciles to the live remediation queue, the team realises the two records have not agreed since the last audit cycle and the gap is the difference between the two systems.
Onboarding a new team member is a treasure hunt
A new analyst inherits the queue and immediately discovers that the rules for which spreadsheet column means severity, which ticket label means accepted risk, and which folder holds the latest report all live in undocumented institutional memory. Onboarding is a six-week ramp in tool taxonomy rather than two weeks of contributing to actual security work.
Tooling cost is invisible because it is spread across owners
The scanner license sits on the security budget. The Jira seat sits on engineering. The shared drive sits on IT. The compliance spreadsheet sits in Finance. The chat licence sits in a platform line item. Nobody can answer how much the security tooling stack costs because the cost is fragmented across owners. When the renewal review comes, the total is always larger than anyone remembered.
Six layers a defensible consolidation puts on one record
Consolidation is not a single migration. It is the deliberate stitching of six layers (findings, evidence, compliance, scanner ingestion, identity and credentials, and reporting) onto the same engagement record so the operational queue, the audit binder, and the leadership pack all derive from the same source. Anything left behind on the old stack becomes the audit drift the next cycle has to reconcile.
Findings layer
One findings record per finding, regardless of source. The scanner output, the spreadsheet history, the ticket queue, and the report draft all collapse onto one record with CVSS 3.1 vector, severity, evidence, status, owner, and remediation history. The same record carries the prior IDs from Nessus, Burp, DefectDojo, Jira, and any imported CSV so the migration is reversible and the audit can trace the lineage.
Evidence and document layer
Engagement-attached documents replace the shared drive. Reports, screenshots, scanner exports, scope letters, retest evidence, and signed attestations attach to the engagement they belong to rather than to a folder hierarchy that diverges from the records the team works on. Documents inherit the workspace and engagement scope so access control and audit retrieval follow the engagement rather than a parallel access list.
Compliance and audit-evidence layer
Compliance tracking maps the live findings record to ISO 27001, SOC 2, Cyber Essentials, PCI DSS, and NIST controls. The mapping derives from the findings record rather than running alongside it as a parallel spreadsheet. CSV export gives the audit team the trail behind every control conclusion without a manual reauthor step. The control register stops drifting because the source is the same as the operational queue.
Scanner and ingestion layer
External scanning, authenticated scanning, and code scanning all run inside the platform. Net-new findings land directly on the findings record without a CSV courier. Imports from Nessus, Burp Suite, and CSV continue to cover legacy outputs and any specialised scanner the team still owns. The continuous-monitoring scheduler covers daily, weekly, biweekly, and monthly cadence per asset, so the recurring scan posture survives consolidation rather than depending on a handful of cron jobs scattered across the team.
Identity, access, and credential layer
Team management with RBAC tiers (owner, admin, member, viewer, billing) replaces shared spreadsheet access lists. Multi-factor authentication enforces AAL2 session promotion before any record is changed. Encrypted credential storage with AES-256-GCM holds the authenticated-scan credentials inside the platform rather than in an external password manager that nobody syncs. Verified domains constrain credential creation to hostnames the workspace owns. The credential layer stops being a liability the day the consolidation completes.
Reporting and stakeholder layer
AI-generated reports produce the executive summary, technical report, remediation roadmap, and compliance summary from the live engagement record rather than from a static draft a human reauthored. The branded client portal mirrors scoped views to external stakeholders without copying the data. Global search reaches across findings, engagements, clients, and documents from one bar so the answer to "where did we put that" stops requiring three browser tabs and two file explorer windows.
Six failure modes that turn a one-quarter migration into a multi-year project
Every consolidation that drifts into a multi-year migration drifts there for one of the same reasons. The six modes below recur whenever the migration map omits the unobvious artefacts (chat decisions, credential entries, the audit binder template) and stops at the easy ones (findings spreadsheets, scanner exports). Each mode is the one a programme catches at retirement week rather than at kickoff.
Migration becomes a one-week project that lasts a year
The team imports the easy spreadsheet on day one and never finishes the rest. Six months later half the programme runs on the new platform and half still runs on the old stack. The audit cannot decide which record is authoritative and the team pays the cost of both systems. The fix is a documented migration map with retirement dates per legacy artefact rather than a vague intent to consolidate.
Scanner imports drop CVSS vectors
A bulk import preserves severity but loses the CVSS attack vector, attack complexity, privileges required, and impact metrics. The migrated findings carry "high" but cannot be re-prioritised when KEV or asset context shifts because the underlying vector is gone. The fix is mapping the full CVSS vector during import so the priority logic continues to work after the spreadsheet retires.
Legacy ticket queues become orphaned remediation work
Findings migrate to the new platform but the open Jira tickets stay on the old queue. Engineering picks up tickets from one place; security tracks remediation in another. The two systems drift and findings close in one without closing in the other. The fix is migrating the active remediation work alongside the findings, retiring the old queue on a documented date, and using the activity log on the new platform as the single closure record.
The compliance spreadsheet stays authoritative after switchover
Compliance mapping migrates to compliance tracking but the original spreadsheet keeps getting updated by the GRC team because that is what the audit binder template references. The new platform never becomes the source of truth for control evidence. The fix is updating the audit binder template to reference the platform export and retiring the spreadsheet on the day the next cycle opens.
Credentials never leave the password manager
The team migrates findings and reports but leaves authenticated-scan credentials in a shared password manager entry. The new platform cannot run authenticated scans without a manual paste each time. The team falls back to external scanning and the authenticated coverage gap quietly returns. The fix is migrating credentials into encrypted credential storage with the verified-domain hostname check during the same migration window the findings move on.
Nobody retires the chat channel where decisions actually happen
A consolidation that leaves the decision-making chat channel alone migrates everything except the most important record. Six weeks later the new platform holds the findings and the chat channel still holds the rationale for why each one closed the way it did. The fix is moving the rationale onto the finding itself, with the comment, the named decider, and the timestamp captured on the activity log so the audit can read why and not just what.
Security tool consolidation checklist
Before any consolidation kicks off, and at every retirement gate, the engagement lead and the security operations owner walk through a short checklist. Each item takes minutes; missing any one of them is the source of the failure modes above and the audit gaps that follow.
- Inventory captures every system the security programme touches today, not just the obvious ones.
- Migration map records the source for each artefact, the destination on the engagement record, and the retirement date.
- Bulk imports preserve full CVSS 3.1 vectors, not just severity bands.
- Engagement scope, asset tier, and exposure annotation are inherited at import time, not added later.
- Authenticated-scan credentials migrate into encrypted credential storage during the same window the findings move.
- Repository connections via GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket OAuth run net-new code-scan output into the platform from day one.
- Continuous monitoring schedules replace the cron-job scatter that produced the old scan cadence.
- Compliance mappings move from the spreadsheet to compliance tracking, and the audit binder template updates to read the platform export.
- Engagement-attached documents replace the shared drive folder hierarchy with one record per engagement.
- Team RBAC and MFA replace shared spreadsheet access lists; access reviews track named users rather than seat counts.
- The activity log captures every migration step (import, scanner connection, document attachment, credential creation) with timestamp and user.
- Legacy artefacts retire on a documented schedule and become read-only references rather than active sources of record.
- AI-generated reports replace the report drive draft chain so leadership reads from the same record the operators run on.
- Global search reaches across findings, engagements, clients, and documents so the answer to "where is that" stops requiring three browser tabs.
How consolidation looks in SecPortal
Consolidation is one workflow stitched into the feature surfaces the platform already exposes. The work that has to happen at each step is the same work the team would do for a single new engagement; the consolidation layer just runs it across the historical backlog at the same time as the operational queue moves over.
One engagement record
The engagement record is the spine the rest of the workflow attaches to. Findings, evidence, scans, documents, and reports live against it. The scope, the asset tier, and the testing window are recorded once and inherited by every finding logged against the engagement.
Bulk import from legacy systems
Bulk imports from Nessus (.nessus), Burp Suite (.xml), and CSV with custom column mapping bring the historical backlog onto findings management with the original CVSS vectors, severities, and evidence intact. The bulk finding import workflow covers the migration shape in detail.
Scanner and repo connections
External scanning, authenticated scanning, and code scanning run inside the platform. Repository connections cover GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket via OAuth so net-new findings land on the engagement record from day one rather than via a CSV courier.
Encrypted credential migration
Encrypted credential storage holds authenticated-scan credentials inside the platform with AES-256-GCM and the verified-domain hostname check. The migration window moves credentials off the shared password manager so authenticated coverage survives the switchover.
Continuous monitoring schedules
Continuous monitoring runs daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly schedules across external, authenticated, and code scans. The recurring scan posture moves from a handful of cron jobs scattered across the team onto one schedule the audit can read.
Engagement-attached documents
Document management attaches reports, screenshots, scanner exports, scope letters, retest evidence, and attestations to the engagement they belong to. The shared drive stops being authoritative once the engagement record holds the same artefact in context.
Compliance mappings on the record
Compliance tracking replaces the parallel compliance spreadsheet. Findings map to ISO 27001, SOC 2, Cyber Essentials, PCI DSS, and NIST controls. The CSV export becomes the audit binder attachment so the binder template stops referencing the spreadsheet.
Identity, RBAC, and MFA
Team management with RBAC tiers replaces shared spreadsheet access lists. Multi-factor authentication enforces AAL2 session promotion before any record is changed, so the access posture improves alongside the consolidation rather than after it.
Activity log as the migration trail
Every migration step (bulk import, scanner connection, document attachment, credential creation, schedule definition) lands on the activity log with timestamp and user. The CSV export is the trail the audit reads when it asks how the new platform became authoritative on a specific date.
Reporting views the consolidation actually drives
The reports that justify a consolidation are not the slide deck that ran the migration. They are the live views owners, security leads, and auditors look at every week after retirement completes. The five below are the ones every meaningful programme settles on, and they all derive from the live findings record rather than from a parallel spreadsheet.
Open backlog by severity tier
The headline view leadership reads in weekly reviews, derived from one record rather than from three reconciliation passes. The same view drives prioritisation, remediation tracking, and the leadership pack.
Compliance mapping coverage
Findings mapped to ISO 27001, SOC 2, Cyber Essentials, PCI DSS, and NIST controls, with CSV export. The report a GRC team takes into the audit binder rather than a parallel spreadsheet that drifted last quarter.
Migration completeness
The activity log export against the migration window shows every imported finding, every scanner connection, every credential creation, and every scheduled scan. The view answers the audit question about when the new platform became authoritative.
Recurring scan posture
The continuous-monitoring schedule view shows daily, weekly, biweekly, and monthly scans per asset. The picture replaces the cron-job scatter the old stack ran on and gives leadership and audit a single authoritative cadence.
Activity log export
Every state change on findings, engagements, scans, comments, documents, invoices, and team membership lands on the activity log with timestamp and user attribution. The CSV export is the audit evidence assessors expect to see when they ask for the trail behind the consolidated record.
AI-generated leadership pack
AI-generated reports produce the executive summary, technical report, remediation roadmap, and compliance summary from the live engagement record. The leadership pack stops being a manual stitch from three sources and becomes a derived view of the work the team already ran.
What auditors expect from a consolidated programme
Tool consolidation evidence appears in audit reads whenever an external assessor reviews the security programme. The frameworks below all expect a documented record plus enforcement evidence rather than a slide that names the targets without proving them.
| Framework | What the audit expects |
|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | Clause 7.5 expects documented information for the management system to be controlled and available where needed. Annex A 5.36 expects compliance with policies and standards to be reviewed. A consolidation that retires the parallel compliance spreadsheet and leaves compliance tracking as the single source of control evidence satisfies the documented-information control without manual reauthor steps every audit cycle. |
| SOC 2 | Common Criteria CC4.1 expects the entity to monitor controls. CC7.1 expects detection and remediation of vulnerabilities. CC8.1 expects changes to be authorised, designed, and documented. A consolidated record where findings, remediation, and audit trail live together gives the assessor a single artefact to read instead of three reconciliation passes across systems that disagree. |
| PCI DSS v4.0 | Requirement 12 expects security policies and operational procedures to be in place and current. Requirement 6.3 expects vulnerabilities to be identified and managed. Consolidation onto one engagement record gives the qualified security assessor a single artefact for both, with the activity log as the change-management evidence the assessor expects to see. |
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 | CM-2 expects baseline configuration to be maintained. CA-7 expects continuous monitoring. AU-2 and AU-12 expect audit events to be defined and the system to generate audit records. Consolidating the security stack onto one record where audit events land on the activity log gives the agency or contractor the audit-record control without a separate SIEM correlation step for ordinary security operations evidence. |
| COBIT 2019 / NIST CSF 2.0 | GV.OC and GV.OV expect organisational context and oversight to be documented. ID.RA expects risk assessment to be performed. PR.IP expects information protection processes to be in place. A consolidated platform that holds the finding, the decision, the owner, the closure evidence, and the audit trail in one place is the operational artefact behind those governance and risk-identification expectations. |
Where consolidation fits across the security programme
Consolidation is the migration that lets the rest of the programme operate on one record. Once it is done, the everyday workflows take over: the queue gets prioritised, the SLA gets enforced, the leadership pack ships, and the audit evidence reconciles.
Upstream and adjacent
Consolidation depends on bulk finding import preserving original tool metadata, scanner result triage promoting validated findings into the queue, and security testing program management holding the wider programme cadence after the migration completes.
Downstream and reporting
Once the consolidation lands, the queue feeds vulnerability prioritisation, vulnerability SLA management, remediation tracking, and security leadership reporting from one record rather than from the patchwork the consolidation retired.
Pair the workflow with the comparisons and the buyer personas
Consolidation is a buyer decision before it is a migration. Pair this workflow with the comparison pages that explain the per-tool decisions: the spreadsheets comparison for the most common starting point, the Jira comparison for the engineering-ticket-queue case, the DefectDojo comparison for the OSS findings hub case, the AttackForge comparison for the commercial pentest platform case, the Vulcan Cyber comparison for risk-based vulnerability orchestration, the ArmorCode comparison for the AppSec ASPM aggregation case, the Cycode comparison for the code-graph ASPM case anchored on the SCM, and the ServiceNow VR comparison for the enterprise GRC-platform case.
When the consolidation case crosses the threshold from internal review into a competitive procurement, the vulnerability management platform RFP template is the buyer-side artefact that turns the comparison work into a defensible procurement decision. Twelve sections covering programme context, in-scope assets, prioritisation, remediation workflow, evidence, reporting, integrations, vendor security, commercial model, qualifications, deployment and proof-of-value, and a published scoring rubric, scoped to the consolidation question.
Pair the consolidation work with the security tool coverage overlap research before retiring any tool in the stack. The matrix view (weakness class along the rows, tool category along the columns, primary or secondary or out-of-scope or silent gap per cell) shows whether a candidate for retirement holds the primary-coverage record for any class. Consolidation that retires a primary-coverage tool is a coverage regression rather than a cost saving; consolidation that retires a secondary-coverage tool is exactly the cost saving the procurement case was looking for.
Buyer and operator pairing
Security tool consolidation is the migration CISOs and security leaders drive at the budget level, security operations leaders plan as the programme spine, security engineering teams run as the platform-as-product migration, and vulnerability management teams operate as the find-track-fix-verify backlog after retirement completes. GRC and compliance teams read the consolidated record as audit evidence that the operational queue and the control register reconcile rather than drift. Internal security teams and AppSec teams inherit the simpler operational picture once the migration completes.
What good consolidation feels like
One record, one source of truth
Findings, evidence, decisions, owners, and audit trail all live on the same engagement record. The operational queue, the audit binder, and the leadership pack derive from that record rather than from three reauthored views that disagree by audit week.
Migration is documented, not heroic
The migration map names every legacy artefact, its destination on the engagement record, and its retirement date. The activity log captures the migration steps so the audit can reconstruct what moved and when. Heroic memory in someone's head stops being the dependency.
History is preserved, not orphaned
Bulk imports preserve CVSS vectors, severities, evidence, and prior IDs. Migrated findings inherit engagement scope, asset tier, and exposure annotation. The platform holds the lineage so the historical decisions remain defensible after the legacy system retires.
Evidence is derivative of the work
The compliance mapping, the leadership pack, and the audit binder all derive from the live record. Nobody assembles the evidence at the end of the quarter from a spreadsheet; the activity log is the trail and the AI report is the narrative.
Security tool consolidation is the discipline that turns a sprawling stack into one engagement record without losing the history that justifies the prior decisions. Run it as a documented migration, and every retirement step carries the import, the scanner connection, the document attachment, the credential creation, and the audit trail that the programme and the audit both expect.
Frequently asked questions about security tool consolidation
What is security tool consolidation?
Security tool consolidation is the deliberate migration of scattered security artefacts (findings, evidence, reports, decisions, credentials, control mappings, schedules) from the patchwork of tools they accumulated across onto one operational record. The goal is not buying fewer licences for its own sake; the goal is making the operational queue, the audit evidence, and the leadership view derive from the same source rather than from three reauthored copies that drift apart between meetings.
How is consolidation different from rationalisation?
Rationalisation usually focuses on cost: removing duplicate licences, retiring tools nobody uses, picking one of several overlapping scanners. Consolidation is broader. It includes the cost case but also covers operational sprawl: where the finding lives, where the rationale lives, where the evidence lives, where the audit trail lives. Consolidation can succeed while spend stays roughly the same, because the value comes from the records reconciling rather than from the licence count dropping.
Will consolidation lose historical findings?
Not if the migration map preserves CVSS vectors, severity, evidence, scanner source, engagement scope, and prior IDs at import time. Bulk import from Nessus, Burp Suite, and CSV (with custom column mapping) covers the common scanner outputs and any spreadsheet-shaped history. CSV imports also accept findings exported from Jira and DefectDojo so the prior platform leaves a clean handover. The migration is only lossy when the source data was lossy to begin with.
How long does a consolidation take?
A documented consolidation tends to land in three phases: an inventory and migration-map phase that takes one to three weeks; a migration window where findings, credentials, scanner connections, and compliance mappings move onto the engagement record; and a retirement window where legacy artefacts become read-only references. Most programmes ship phase one and the migration in the same quarter. The longer the inventory hides corners of the stack, the longer the migration drags on.
Do we have to migrate everything at once?
No. A staged migration that retires legacy artefacts on a documented schedule is healthier than a hard cutover. The risk in staging is letting the schedule slip indefinitely, which leaves half the programme on each platform. The fix is publishing retirement dates per legacy artefact at the start of the migration so each system has a defined last day of authoritative use. Phase boundaries between findings, evidence, compliance, and credentials are common.
What happens to the old ticket queue?
Active remediation work migrates onto the engagement record alongside the findings so engineering and security stop picking up tickets from two queues. Closed historical tickets stay on the old queue as read-only history; they do not need to migrate because the closure evidence lives in the report drive that is also being consolidated. The activity log on the new platform becomes the single closure record from the migration date forward.
Does consolidation replace Jira, DefectDojo, or the existing scanners?
It depends on the role each tool plays today. SecPortal replaces a scanner-spreadsheet-Jira-shared-drive-compliance-spreadsheet patchwork that was never designed to be one platform. Where Jira holds engineering work that is not security-specific, Jira stays where it is and the security record links to the engineering ticket without trying to replace it. Where DefectDojo holds findings that have no remediation owner inside engineering, the findings migrate. The consolidation map is per-tool, not all-or-nothing.
How do auditors react to consolidation?
Favourably, when the migration is documented. The audit team prefers reading one record to reconciling three. The risk for the audit is the migration window itself, when records are partially on each platform; the documented retirement schedule and the activity log on the new platform together give the audit a clear narrative for why the new record became authoritative on a specific date. Audits become measurably faster after the consolidation completes because the binder template references one platform export rather than three.
How does this differ from buying a SOAR or SIEM?
SOAR and SIEM platforms focus on alert orchestration and event correlation, usually for security operations centres. Security tool consolidation as described here focuses on the vulnerability, finding, evidence, and remediation record across the security programme: the operational queue plus the audit evidence trail plus the leadership view. SOAR and SIEM may sit alongside SecPortal in a larger SOC environment; consolidation is about the programme record, not the alert pipeline.
How does SecPortal support security tool consolidation?
SecPortal records the engagement scope, captures CVSS 3.1 vectors with environmental and temporal calibration on every finding, accepts bulk imports from Nessus, Burp Suite, and CSV, runs external, authenticated, and code scanning inside the platform, holds authenticated-scan credentials in AES-256-GCM encrypted storage, schedules continuous monitoring at daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly cadence, attaches documents to engagements, maps findings to ISO 27001, SOC 2, Cyber Essentials, PCI DSS, and NIST controls with CSV export, generates AI-driven reports from the live record, and captures every state change on the activity log with retention of thirty, ninety, or three hundred sixty-five days depending on plan. SecPortal does not write the migration map for the team; it makes operational consolidation the path of least resistance once the map is decided.
How it works in SecPortal
A streamlined workflow from start to finish.
Inventory the current security tooling stack
List every system the security programme touches today: scanners (external, authenticated, code), findings stores (Jira, DefectDojo, spreadsheets, scanner native UIs), report drives (SharePoint, shared folders, email attachments), evidence stores (compliance spreadsheets, screenshot folders), credential stores (password manager entries, plaintext docs), ticket queues (engineering Jira, IT ServiceNow), and the chat channels where remediation decisions actually happen. The inventory is the migration baseline. Anything not on it stays orphaned and re-emerges as audit drift after switchover.
Map each existing artefact to the engagement record
A consolidation plan lands on a one-to-one map. Each scanner output becomes an import path into findings management. Each spreadsheet column becomes a finding field, an asset annotation, or an exception register entry. Each compliance pivot becomes a control mapping in compliance tracking. Each report drive folder becomes engagement-attached documents. The map is recorded so the team knows what was migrated, what was retired, and what still requires a manual decision before retirement.
Migrate findings without losing history
Bulk import preserves CVSS vectors, severity, evidence, scanner source, and engagement scope. Nessus, Burp Suite, and CSV imports cover the common scanner outputs; CSV with custom column mapping covers spreadsheet history; CSV imports also accept bulk findings exported from Jira or DefectDojo so the prior platform leaves a clean handover. Each migrated finding inherits the engagement scope, asset tier, and exposure annotation from the import context, so the queue is workable on day one rather than after a quarter of cleanup.
Connect scanners and repositories so net-new findings land here
Authenticated and external scanning run inside the platform with cookie, bearer, basic, or form login modes and AES-256-GCM credential storage. Code scanning connects to GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket through OAuth and runs Semgrep SAST plus SCA against the repository. Continuous monitoring schedules cover daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly cadence per asset. Net-new findings produced after switchover land directly on the engagement record, so the migration boundary is the last day the old stack added entries the new platform did not.
Retire the legacy artefacts behind the audit trail
Once findings, evidence, and reports are on the engagement record, the legacy artefacts retire on a documented schedule. The activity log captures every migration step (bulk import, scanner connection, document attachment, credential creation) with timestamp and user, so the audit can reconstruct what moved and when. Retired spreadsheets, ticket queues, and report drives become read-only references for the historical period rather than active sources of record. The legacy compliance spreadsheet stops being authoritative the day compliance tracking inherits its mappings.
Operate the programme on one record going forward
Findings, engagements, scans, evidence documents, exceptions, AI-generated reports, and the activity log live together. The branded client portal mirrors scoped views for external stakeholders. Global search reaches across findings, engagements, clients, and documents from one bar. Team management with RBAC and MFA replaces shared spreadsheet access. The leadership pack, the audit evidence binder, and the operator queue all derive from the same record rather than from three reauthored views that drift apart between meetings.
Features that power this workflow
Orchestrate every security engagement from start to finish
Vulnerability management software that tracks every finding
Compliance tracking without a full GRC platform
Every action recorded across the workspace
Document management for every security engagement
Global search across every engagement, finding, and client
Consolidate the security stack onto one engagement record
Bring scanners, findings, reports, evidence, and decisions together. Migrate without losing history. Start free.
No credit card required. Free plan available forever.