Capabilities / Mission-aware security
From the first signal to the human decision.
CENTARGUS brings clinical-risk triage, attack-path investigation, governed response, and incident evidence into one security operations workflow.
Explore the capabilities
Clarity for the analyst.
Control for the mission.
01 / Clinical-risk triage
The right signal. The right priority.
The queue is ordered by what an event can do to care or operations, with a readable reason beside the ranking.
- Separate noise from paths that touch records, imaging, identity, or control systems.
- Keep the reason visible so an analyst can challenge the ranking.
- Move through routine work while keeping exceptions in view.
Illustrative use caseAn unusual sign-in becomes more meaningful when the account can reach a clinical system. Review the asset’s role and the supporting evidence before deciding its priority.
Start with the observation
An identity, endpoint, or network event is a starting point. Keep its source and observed behavior available for the analyst’s review.
Ask what the system supports
Connect the event to systems that support care or operations. A workstation beside an imaging workflow needs context that alert severity alone cannot provide.
Make the reasoning inspectable
Present the reason for prioritization alongside the event. The analyst can challenge the assessment and focus the next investigation on the mission at risk.
02 / Attack-path investigation
See the path between the alerts.
Identity, endpoint, and network evidence stay together so the sequence becomes visible and the next question has context.
- Pivot from a credential, host, or connection without starting over.
- Map the sequence to commonly used attacker behaviors for a shared team language.
- Show which systems are adjacent to protected information.
Illustrative use caseA credential is used from an unexpected host. Follow the related endpoint and network evidence to understand whether the activity leads toward protected records or an operational system.
Follow the credential
Begin with the account and its observed use. Review the evidence around the identity before assuming an unexpected login is a complete incident.
Connect the next observation
Move from the account to its host and connections. Keeping those observations together helps an analyst see a sequence instead of isolated alerts.
Understand what is within reach
Review the systems adjacent to the observed activity. Use the path and its evidence to frame the risk to protected information or mission continuity.
03 / Governed response
A recommendation is not an authorization.
Playbooks propose the next step. People approve the actions that can change a live environment.
- Recommend isolation, access revocation, or a hold.
- Set rules that avoid automatic disruption of bedside or control workstations.
- Record who approved, who declined, and why.
Illustrative use caseA proposed isolation would affect a workstation used in active operations. The responsible person reviews the context, then approves, declines, or holds the proposed response with a reason.
Make the proposed action explicit
Present the response recommendation alongside the evidence. Isolation, access revocation, or a hold should have a clear purpose that a person can assess.
Apply operational judgment
The approver considers live care or operational dependencies. A recommendation does not replace the decision to approve, decline, or hold the action.
Preserve the decision and its owner
Keep who decided and why beside the proposed response. The resulting record supports handover and the review that follows the incident.
04 / Evidence and review
The decision deserves a record.
Keep the recommendation, the human decision, and the action in context so an incident review does not begin by reconstructing chat logs.
- Keep the recommendation beside the action.
- Export a narrative an executive and a regulator can both read.
- Include vulnerability and patch context without losing the incident story.
Illustrative use caseDuring a shift handover, the next analyst can review the observed activity, the response recommendation, and the approver’s rationale in the incident narrative.
Keep the supporting observations
Retain the evidence that informed the investigation, with relevant vulnerability or patch context available when it helps explain the incident.
Connect judgment to the action
Keep the recommendation and resulting action together with the responsible person’s reasoning. That relationship is the part a reconstructed timeline can miss.
Tell a readable incident story
Use the record to support an incident review or oversight discussion. The narrative should help technical and nontechnical readers understand what happened and why.
Bring your operational context
Which decision is hardest in your environment?
Start with the systems you protect, the evidence your team needs, and the actions that require human authority. We can walk through the workflow in a briefing.
Request a briefing