Turn Security Intent into Verifiable Proof
Define clear security requirements, verify them against shipped software, and retain evidence that holds up across releases. Move from abstract controls and threats to concrete, testable requirements with continuous verification and traceability.
The Gap Between Requirements and Verification
Security requirements often start with the right intent—threat models, standards, customer expectations—but break down before they reach implementation and verification.
Teams struggle because:
- Requirements live in documents, not workflows
- Controls are interpreted inconsistently across teams and products
- Verification is manual, incomplete, or disconnected from builds
- Evidence is recreated for every audit or release
- There’s no reliable link between design intent and shipped software
The result is security requirements that look good on paper but are difficult to verify, maintain, or defend over time.
Security requirements should be derived, verified, and maintained within the same workflow that tracks shipped software.
With Finite State, you can derive requirements directly from threats and controls, define how each requirement must be verified, and continuously evaluate verification status as builds change—producing durable evidence instead of one-off checklists.
This workflow is enabled by:
- Ground-truth inventory and build awareness
- Automated reasoning to translate intent into executable requirements
- Verification workflows designed to persist across releases
How It Works
Derive Requirements from Threats and Controls
Start with design intent, not guesswork.
Security requirements are derived directly from threat models, risk assessments, regulatory controls, and internal policies. Each requirement is explicit, scoped, and tied to a specific security objective, eliminating ambiguity before implementation begins.
What you get: Clear, actionable requirements grounded in real risk and obligations.
Define Verification Methods Up Front
For each requirement, define how it must be verified before testing begins. Verification methods may include static or binary analysis, configuration validation, dynamic testing, or targeted penetration testing, where required.
Verification expectations are explicit and repeatable, not left to interpretation.
What you get: Requirements that can be verified consistently, not retrofitted later.
Verify Against Shipped Software
Verification is performed against real builds, not abstract designs or outdated assumptions. Results are tied directly to specific builds, artifacts, and the requirements being satisfied.
As software evolves, verification status is automatically re-evaluated.
What you get: Continuous visibility into what has been verified—and what hasn’t—for every release.
Capture and Retain Evidence Automatically
Verification outputs are captured as lasting evidence, including results, artifacts, attribution, and traceability back to requirements, threats, and controls. Evidence persists across releases and can be reused without rework.
What you get: Audit-ready proof without rebuilding documentation from scratch.
Key Focus Areas
Requirements Derived From Threats and Controls
Security requirements are directly traceable to the risks and obligations they address and remain maintainable as designs evolve.
Impact: Security intent stays aligned with real risk and compliance needs.
Verification Methods Defined Explicitly
Each requirement includes a clear verification approach that can be applied consistently across teams and products.
Impact: Verification becomes predictable, repeatable, and defensible.
Designed to Feed Release Gating
Verification status and unmet requirements flow directly into release readiness and security gating decisions, so releases are blocked or approved based on verified security posture—not assumptions.
Impact: Security requirements directly influence ship/no-ship decisions
AgentOS - Consistent Security Reasoning at Scale
AgentOS provides the reasoning layer that applies security requirements and verification logic consistently across products, variants, and releases. It uses structured, repeatable logic so requirements are interpreted the same way every time, verification stays consistent, and outcomes remain aligned with shipped software as it changes.
Impact: Security requirements become operational, repeatable, and resilient to change without added manual effort.
What This Enables
With security requirements and verification built into the workflow, teams can:
Move from abstract controls to concrete, testable requirements
Eliminate ambiguity and inconsistent interpretation
Maintain continuous verification across releases
Reuse evidence without rebuilding documentation
Security requirements stop being paperwork, and start driving real outcomes.
Integrate With Your Existing Stack
Integrate security into existing developer workflows—without slowing delivery.
See this in action
Define requirements with intent. Verify them with evidence. Ship with