Audits find yesterday's risk.
Secorvia finds today's.
A manual audit is a snapshot from a consultant engagement that took weeks to schedule and weeks more to deliver. By the time the report lands, your cloud has already changed. Secorvia maps your environment continuously, so there's no report to wait on.
| Capability | Manual audits | Secorvia |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous scanning | No | Yes |
| Every cloud in one graph | No | Yes |
| Attack path & blast radius modeling | No | Yes |
| MITRE ATT&CK mapping | Partial | Yes |
| Compliance evidence automation | No | Yes |
| Time to first finding | Weeks | Minutes |
| Setup | Consultant engagement | Read-only API, under 5 min |
Always current, not once a year
An audit is a snapshot from whenever the engagement happened. Secorvia's graph reflects your environment as it is right now, on every scan.
Evidence, not a slide deck
Findings map to compliance frameworks automatically, so audit prep is a read-only export instead of three weeks of screenshots.
Minutes, not a procurement cycle
No consultant engagement to schedule. Connect a real cloud account with read-only API access and see actual attack paths the same day.
What a manual audit is genuinely good at
An experienced auditor brings something no tool has: judgement about your business. They can tell that a particular data store matters more than its tags suggest, that a workaround was deliberate, or that a control exists in a process rather than in a configuration. For attestation work — the signed opinion a customer or regulator asks for — an auditor is not optional, and nothing here replaces one.
The problem is not the audit. It is what happens in the eleven months afterwards. An engagement is scoped, scheduled, executed and written up, and by the time the report is circulated the environment it describes has already moved. Every account created, role widened or security group opened since the fieldwork ended is outside the document. The report is accurate about a date, and that date keeps receding.
Where the annual model breaks
Cloud estates change daily, and the changes that create real exposure are rarely dramatic. A role gets an extra policy so a deploy can finish. A bucket is opened to debug something and never closed. A subnet route is added for one integration. None of these look like incidents, and all of them can quietly complete a path from the internet to something that matters.
A findings list cannot tell you which of them did, because a list has no notion of what connects to what. That is the gap a severity score cannot close: severity describes a weakness in isolation, while exposure is a property of the environment around it. The same misconfiguration is trivia on an isolated test account and an emergency one hop from a production database.
Audit findings also arrive sorted by control, not by consequence. Every team that has worked through a report knows the experience of reading two hundred rows and having no defensible way to decide which three to fix on Monday.
What continuous mapping changes
Secorvia connects to AWS, Azure, GCP and DigitalOcean through read-only roles you create and control, and builds a single security graph of assets, network reachability and identity relationships across all of them. Because it is one graph rather than four consoles, a path that starts in one provider and ends in another is still a path.
Findings are then ranked by where they sit on that graph. Blast radius — what an attacker reaches once they control a given resource — is what turns an undifferentiated list into an order of work. A medium-severity issue one hop from customer data outranks a critical one on something nothing can reach.
For the audit itself, the work changes shape rather than disappearing. Findings map to frameworks continuously, so compliance coverage is a view you open rather than three weeks of screenshots assembled before fieldwork. The auditor still forms the opinion; you stop rebuilding the evidence from scratch each year.
Common questions
Does Secorvia replace our auditors?
No. An audit produces an attested opinion, and that requires a qualified human. Secorvia replaces the evidence-gathering scramble that precedes one, and covers the months between engagements when nothing else is looking.
Is this the same as a penetration test?
No, and the two answer different questions. A pen test applies human creativity to specific targets and finds things no model predicts. Secorvia maps what is reachable continuously and across the whole estate, which is exactly what a time-boxed engagement cannot do.
How long does setup take compared with an engagement?
Connecting a cloud account is a read-only role and takes about five minutes; the quickstart guide walks through it. There is no statement of work, no scheduling and no consultant to brief.
What does it cost to try?
The free plan connects one account per provider with no card and no expiry. Plan limits and what each tier adds are on the pricing page.
Read further
What CSPM covers and where it stops sets out the category this sits in, and the over-permissioned identity problem covers the half of cloud exposure that configuration review traditionally misses entirely. If you are also weighing automated tooling, see Secorvia vs. point-in-time scanners.
Comparing vendors rather than approaches? We set Secorvia against Wiz, Orca Security, Sysdig and Prisma Cloud, each with sources and a verification date, and put all of them in one comparison table.