Clear separation of fact and interpretation
Keep original sources visible alongside the conclusions. Investigators can challenge proposed relationships and record what needs further checking.
Investigate threats to your organisation.
An impersonated executive, a threat to an employee or a concern about a business partner can put a small security team under immediate pressure. Azonic helps investigators examine the people and activity involved, with findings colleagues can inspect.
The report is specific. The context is scattered.
An employee reports a message using an executive’s name. Procurement raises a concern about a supplier. A threatening account begins contacting several members of staff. Security needs to establish who is involved, whether the incidents connect and what deserves further attention.
Relevant material may sit with security, legal, HR or commercial colleagues, as well as public sources. Investigators need to assemble that context, examine the evidence and explain the findings to the people responsible for a response.
When your organisation needs a closer look.
Executive and brand impersonation
Examine accounts, messages or domains using your organisation’s identity to approach employees or customers. Establish the relevant connections and document the findings for security, legal or fraud colleagues.
Threats to employees and executives
Investigate reported threats and related online activity. Keep the original context, examine relevant actors and build a chronology the team responsible for the response can assess.
Vendor and partner concerns
Follow a specific concern about a supplier, intermediary or prospective partner. Bring relevant entities, identifiers and sources into an investigation that informs your existing due diligence.
Example use case
Investigate an executive-impersonation attempt.
An employee receives a payment request from an account using an executive’s identity. The security team needs to examine the reported account, related identifiers and any connected attempts before briefing the colleagues handling the response.
- 1Reported concern
- 2Developing record
- 3Reviewed response
Illustrative example. An analyst reviews the chronology before a summary goes to authorised recipients.
Keep the original request
Retain the reported message, account details and relevant internal context. Establish what the sender requested and the questions the security team needs to answer.
Examine the related activity
Compare relevant accounts, domains and other sources with the reported attempt. Build the chronology and distinguish supported connections from details that need further checking.
Brief the right colleagues
Prepare a reviewed account of the findings for authorised security, legal or operational recipients. Keep supporting material and the release record in the case.
What matters for
your team.
Context for the people handling the response
Give security, legal, HR or commercial colleagues the findings relevant to their role. Keep the chronology and source material available so questions can be examined as the response develops.
Follow developments around an active concern
Use Lighthouse to maintain awareness of relevant actors and activity between investigative searches. Assess new observations against what the team already knows about the case.
Vantage
Investigate impersonation, threats and concerns about external parties in a case that keeps relevant sources, chronology and findings together.
Lighthouse
Follow relevant people, accounts and activity around an active concern, so the security team can assess new developments.
Putting Azonic
to work.
Can we use this to look into a vendor or prospective partner?
Yes, when there is a specific concern. Your investigator opens a case on the people or entities involved. Vantage works across the identifiers, public sources and internal records your organisation authorises, with the basis for each finding attached. The findings feed into your existing due-diligence process; they do not replace it.
Can we combine a reported threat with our internal information?
Yes. The case holds the original report alongside the internal information your organisation authorises and relevant external sources, so your investigator can work through the chronology, related accounts and context in one place. Which internal systems connect is agreed with each customer and set out in our agreement with them.
What can security share with legal, HR or business operations?
Whatever your investigator approves for them. Security prepares reviewed findings with citations for each named recipient and checks the contents and access before release. The source material stays in the case. Nothing leaves unreviewed.
How does the team keep track of a concern that is still developing?
Lighthouse keeps watch on the people, accounts and activity around the concern, using watch rules your team sets, and flags changes for review. A new observation can join the active case in Vantage, where your team assesses it against the open questions.
Does this replace our existing security tools?
No. Vantage and Lighthouse connect two ways with the systems your team already runs. They take in alerts and records, and send findings and actions back, such as a takedown, block or referral. Which systems we connect is agreed with each customer and set out in our agreement with them.
Where does our data sit, and who can see it?
Vantage and Lighthouse run self-hosted in your infrastructure or in your own cloud environment. Access follows the roles your organisation sets. Hosting, region, retention, connected sources and any access by Azonic are agreed with each customer and set out in our agreement with them.