“We have EDR/logging/patching” isn’t an answer – the question is: where exactly is it missing? This use case checks coverage with your security solutions against your asset overview and reveals gaps that truly matter. Goal: fewer blind spots and clear owners for closure.
If you’d like, we’ll show you coverage mapping and prioritisation in a short demo – together with the solution lead from our technology partner.
Coverage with security solutions is often fragmented: different tenants, exceptions, legacy, project systems. Without a reliable asset overview and clear ownership, gaps are debated rather than closed. Result: recurring blind spots.
We take the asset overview as “ground truth” and compare coverage with your security solutions against it. Gaps are categorised, prioritised and routed to owners. Important: closure is verified, so “green” truly means green.
Typical timeframe: 2–4 weeks until coverage map + prioritised backlog.
Confirm asset overview
Define sources/tools for coverage
Compare + categorise gaps
Assign owners + fix/workaround
Verification & review cadence
Is this just reporting?
No – the goal is closure. Reporting is a by-product.
What if protection isn’t technically possible everywhere?
Then that becomes visible and gets an alternative measure.
How do you prioritise gaps?
By exposure, criticality, environment and fixability.
Can this integrate with ITSM?
Yes – when ownership is clean, routing makes sense.
Let’s make gaps visible and close them verifiably.