SERVICENOW · SecOps

SecOps turns findings into work with an owner

Most security teams do not have a detection problem. They have a prioritisation and ownership problem — thousands of findings, no agreed severity, and no reliable way to say which system matters. That is a CMDB question as much as a security one.

You’ll speak to a certified consultant, not a salesperson.

ITSMITOM & CMDBDiscoveryService MappingEvent ManagementCSMSecOpsVulnerability ResponseSPMIntegrationsUpgrades

WHAT IT COVERS

SecOps in practice

Security Incident Response

Intake from SIEM and mailbox, enrichment, containment workflow, and post-incident review that produces changes rather than documents.

Vulnerability Response

Ingesting Qualys, Tenable or Rapid7 findings, grouping them into actionable items, and routing to the team that can actually patch.

Risk-based prioritisation

Scoring findings by business service impact rather than raw CVSS, which requires the CMDB to be trustworthy for the systems in scope.

Configuration Compliance

Policy checks against hardening baselines, with exceptions tracked rather than forgotten.

Threat Intelligence

IoC lookups and enrichment feeding the incident record so analysts stop pivoting between tools.

Integration with Change

Remediation that flows through the same change process as everything else, so security work is visible in the same plan.

WHERE IT GOES WRONG

Four ways SecOps implementations disappoint

Vulnerability Response without a usable CMDB

Without reliable CI ownership you cannot route a finding to anyone, so everything lands with the infrastructure team as an undifferentiated list. Prioritisation by business impact is impossible.

Severity that nobody agreed to

If security, infrastructure and the business have not agreed what critical means and what response it triggers, the workflow will be overridden within a month.

The scanner integration became the project

Ingesting findings is the easy half. Grouping them into remediation items a team can actually action is the work, and it is usually underestimated.

Security work bypasses change management

Emergency patching outside the normal process is reasonable occasionally and corrosive permanently. It needs a defined path, not an exception culture.

HOW WE APPROACH IT

What we do differently

Check the CMDB is good enough first
For the systems in scope only. If it is not, we say so before you spend money on Vulnerability Response.
Get severity agreed in a room
Security, infrastructure and a business owner. Written down, then configured.
Group findings into work, not lists
Remediation targets that map to a team, a change window and a definition of done.
Wire remediation into change
One plan, one calendar, visible to everyone.

Every engagement opens with the 30-day platform review. You keep the report and the plan whether or not you work with us.

QUESTIONS

Questions we get asked

Does SecOps replace our SIEM?

No. The SIEM detects; SecOps is where response is coordinated, tracked and reported. They integrate rather than compete.

We have no CMDB. Can we still do Vulnerability Response?

Partially, and it will underdeliver. You can ingest and track findings, but you cannot prioritise by business impact or route reliably to an owner. We would usually fix CMDB coverage for the in-scope estate first.

Which scanners integrate?

The major ones — Qualys, Tenable, Rapid7 — have supported integrations. The integration is rarely the hard part; agreeing what happens to a finding after it arrives is.

Tell us what's not working

Thirty minutes, a certified consultant, and a straight answer about whether we can help with SecOps. If we can’t, we’ll say so and point you somewhere better.

We reply within one working day. info@technowpartners.com · +32 488 981 604