TrustMAPP Cyber Performance Intelligence™
Exposure governance for the modern security program.
The governance layer connecting security exposures to controls, business priorities, ownership, and remediation. Your tools already find what is wrong. This is the layer that decides what it means, who owns it, and whether the fix moved the score.
No agents. No rip-and-replace. Read-only connections to the stack you own.
Reads from
The missing layer
Finding exposures is solved. Governing them is not.
Every organization now runs several tools that are very good at saying what is wrong. Almost none has a layer that turns those findings into control health, business priority, named ownership, and evidence that risk actually went down.
Found
Counted, not owned
A scanner reports 14,000 open items. It cannot say which application team is accountable for them, or what the business does with that application.
Assessed
Captured, then stale
Control health is recorded in an assessment cycle and starts aging immediately. By audit time it describes an environment that no longer exists.
Reported
Rebuilt every time
The same underlying facts get re-exported, re-formatted, and re-argued for each framework, each committee, and each customer questionnaire.
How it works
From raw exposure to accountable remediation
Four steps, running continuously. Each one is something your team already does by hand.
The workflow
One path from telemetry to a signed remediation date
Exposures enter from the tools that find them and leave as a governed decision: a control impact, a prioritized risk, a named owner, and proof the score moved. Nothing is retyped along the way.
Coverage
Map the evidence once. Prove it everywhere.
Cyber Performance Intelligence inherits TrustMAPP's crossmapped framework library. One piece of evidence, one control assessment, one remediation — reflected across every standard you are held to, and updated as the underlying exposure changes.
NIST CSF 2.0
106 subcategories
ISO/IEC 27001:2022
93 controls
PCI DSS v4.0.1
12 requirements
SOC 2
5 trust services criteria
CIS Controls v8
18 controls
TISAX / VDA ISA 6.0
3 assessment modules
HIPAA Security Rule
3 safeguard groups
CMMC 2.0
3 levels
Why it matters
Built for what a CISO is actually asked
Not "are we compliant." The harder four: where are we exposed, who is fixing it, is it getting better, and can you show me.
Performance, not activity
Finding counts describe effort. Maturity against target describes whether the program is working. This reports the second one.
Owners, not queues
Every risk resolves to a named business or application owner with a date, so remediation conversations happen with the person who controls the outcome.
Shorter time to reduce risk
Prioritization uses business context, not just severity. Teams work the exposures that move the score instead of the ones that sort to the top.
Audit proof as a by-product
Evidence accumulates from work already being done. Audit prep becomes a filter on existing records rather than a two-month project.
Questions
What security leaders ask before connecting one more tool
What is cyber performance intelligence?
It is the governance layer connecting security exposures to controls, business priorities, ownership, and remediation. Detection tools tell you what is wrong. Cyber Performance Intelligence tells you what it costs the business, which controls it degrades, who is accountable, and whether the program is improving quarter over quarter.
Put plainly: your stack measures activity. This measures performance.
Is this an exposure management tool?
No — it is the layer above one. Exposure management platforms discover and prioritize what is wrong. This takes their output and answers the governance questions they cannot: control impact, business priority, named ownership, treatment decision, and measured improvement.
If you already run an exposure management platform, this makes its output governable. If you run three, it makes them agree.
Do we have to replace our scanners or agents?
No. The connection is read-only and additive, through prebuilt connectors and the Integration API. If you swap a tool later, the connector changes and the historical trend stays intact.
Is this third-party risk management?
No. This works across your security tool vendors, not your suppliers — it unifies findings from the products you have bought into one measured view of your own environment. Supplier and third-party assessments are handled elsewhere in TrustMAPP.
What does it actually do with CMDB data?
CMDB records supply the business context that exposures lack: which application, which service, which owner, which criticality. That join is what turns a vulnerability count into an accountable risk rather than a report nobody can act on.
Where CMDB coverage is thin, the ingest view shows you exactly which assets are unattributed instead of quietly averaging them away.
Two tools disagree about the same asset. What happens?
The conflict is flagged rather than silently resolved. You set precedence rules by source and data type — CMDB wins on ownership, the scanner wins on version, and so on. Unresolved conflicts stay visible, so data quality is a managed item instead of a hidden assumption.
How does this change what we take to the board?
You stop presenting volume and start presenting direction: maturity by function against an agreed target, movement since last quarter, and the named owners behind each open risk — with the source evidence available if anyone asks where a number came from.
How long before it shows real numbers?
The first connectors typically produce a scored posture within the opening working sessions of an implementation. Depth comes from tuning the CMDB join and precedence rules, which most teams refine over their first assessment cycle.
See it on your data
Bring one feed. We'll show you the score.
A working session with your own connector, your own CMDB extract, and your own frameworks — so you can see what Cyber Performance Intelligence does with the environment you actually run.