[ Autonomous offensive security ]

Thinks like an
attacker.
Proves like an auditor.

An autonomous security researcher for the software you ship. It learns the boundaries your product trusts, crosses the ones that should not hold, and proves every finding with hard evidence.

scope  your software mode  scoped & ongoing output  proven findings
app.example.com / refunds ○ probing
ownerrefund · allowed
another usershould be denied
crosses it · refund issued for an order it does not own · 200

01 / The gap

Boundaries fail
silently.

Scanners match payloads against a checklist. Pentests are a snapshot that ages the moment they end. Meanwhile your app ships new logic every day, and the boundaries that quietly stop trusting the wrong request are the ones nobody tests.

UnboundCompute reasons about your application, not a generic list, so it finds the crossing that matters and shows you it is real.

Who it's for

Built for teams shipping faster than security can keep up.

If a broken permission check would cost you a customer, a contract, or a headline, this is built for you.

Multiple tenants or roles

One user's data must never cross into another user's access.

Complex authorization

Roles, permissions, and approval flows where the rules carry real consequences.

Money and state changes

Refunds, discounts, quotas, and workflow states worth bending past the rules.

Heavy on APIs, shipping fast

New endpoints every week, faster than a manual review cycle can keep up with.

No offensive team of your own

You want this coverage without standing up a full offensive security function.

Inside the product

Complex research.
Radical clarity.

UnboundCompute does the offensive-security work underneath, then gives whoever owns the problem a clear account of what happened, how it knows, and what to do next.

UnboundCompute / console
NORTHSTAR / BRIEFING
MenuAskNew research

Needs your attention

A normal member downloaded another company’s invoice.

Customer billing data crossed between two companies. The behavior was reproduced with two separate member accounts.

01 proven path02 reproductions18 evidence objects
What should happenMembers see only their company’s invoices.
What happenedAnother company’s invoice was returned.

Independent reproduction

Invitation and team-role workflows

researching now
IdentityNormal member
WorkflowTeam invitations
HypothesisReuse invitation
ObservedSecond account accepted
research attention
UnderstandBaselineObserveReproduceProve

Proven / reproduced ×2

One claim, every layer of proof attached.

BaselineOwn invoice200
Changed conditionAnother company’s invoice200
Negative controlSigned out401
GET /api/v2/invoices/inv_209/export
Authorization: Bearer [member_identity]
X-Workspace-ID: ws_acme

HTTP/2 200 OK
organization: Northstar Labs

Verified closed

The repaired boundary held.

UnboundCompute replayed the same identity, action, and foreign invoice reference used in the original proof.

Normal memberDownload invoiceAccess refused
Original result200 / data returnedAfter fix404 / boundary held
Tested and heldProject ownership
Proven harmfulInvoice ownership
Still unknownAdministrator role changes

It shows what it proved, what held, and what it could not test.

02 / Evidence

Every finding,
proven.

No guessing at severity, no "likely exploitable." Suspicious behavior stays an observation until it is reproduced against a control. Each proven report includes the recorded request, the response that should never have come back, and a replay your engineers can run themselves.

Recorded request and response, verbatim
Replayed against an authorized baseline
Exported as a repeatable test for CI
finding · UC-0428● broken access control
# as another user, should be denied
POST /api/orders/4471/refund
authorization: Bearer <user_b>
# response
200 OK  refund issued · $1,200.00
order.owner ≠ caller
baseline (owner): 200  ·  this caller should: 403replay ↻

Proof in plain sight

Proof your whole
team can act on.

Every finding ships a plain English read, what it is, what an attacker could do, and how to fix it, right next to the hard evidence. Your engineers get the exact request, everyone else gets the point.

read by  engineers & PMs export  PoC · ticket · report

In plain English

A logged in user could open another customer’s project that should have been off limits to them.

What could happen
An attacker could read other tenants’ private projects and data.
How to fix it
Check on every request that the user owns the record they ask for.
idor · GET /api/projects/{id}● proven · reproduced ×2

03 / What it crosses

The boundaries a checklist walks past.

It models identities, objects, workflows and trust relationships. These are boundaries, not a closed vulnerability checklist.

A01

Identity and tenant boundaries

Testing what changes when the same action is performed as another tenant, member, owner, or role.

A02

Object ownership

Following identifiers and relationships to learn whether records remain bound to the people and companies that own them.

A03

Workflow and state boundaries

Refunds, approvals, discounts, quotas and state transitions bent past what the product rules intend.

A04

Role and permission transitions

Sessions, tokens and role changes that let a low-trust caller reach actions reserved for someone else.

A05

Service and network trust

Following backend calls, integrations and trusted services into places the application assumed a user could not reach.

A06

Chained impact

Using one proven foothold to reach the next boundary, then preserving the complete path from entry to impact.

How it operates

Deep research, inside boundaries you control.

You define the environment, scope and test identities. UnboundCompute keeps the difference between observed, proven, blocked and untested visible throughout the research.

01 / Scope

Start with an environment and identities

Connect a staging application, choose what is in scope, and provide the roles needed to exercise real workflows.

02 / Control

Research stays attributable

Requests, identities, baselines and controls remain attached to the investigation, including paths it could not exercise.

03 / Handoff

Proof remains useful after the run

Export the evidence and replay the same identity, action and boundary after the fix to verify that it now holds.

04 / Why it's different

A different kind of result.

Scanners

Match known payloads against a checklist. Loud, generic, and blind to logic that is unique to you. You triage the noise.

Manual pentest

Deep but a snapshot. Expensive, scheduled, and stale the day after it ends, while your app keeps shipping.

UnboundCompute

Builds an application-specific model of identities, objects, workflows and trust. It explores unexpected transitions, reproduces what succeeds against controls, and preserves the path for replay.

Design partner program

Find the line.
Then watch it cross.

UnboundCompute is in private access. Point it at a staging environment and see what it proves before your next release does.

you control the scope · blocked coverage stays visible · evidence is replayable

or explore the console demo with sample data