Any tool can hand you a list of findings. The work that decides your release is which fix you ship, what it removes, and how much revalidation it forces. ELTON scores every candidate fix on both axes and writes the plan that deploys in days.
Every change to a cleared device is a design change.
The train runs the same for a kernel patch and a typo.
Risk assessment, impact analysis, and the regulatory change decision run on every fix. FDA rarely reviews a cyber patch, but your quality system always does.
V&V has to prove essential performance survived the change. The wider the change reaches, the more of the device you retest.
The engineers who can validate a change on a given product are a small, busy set. Every patch competes for the same people.
Discovery went exponential and your patch capacity did not.
A quarter per fix was survivable at four findings a year.
A finding says something is wrong, rarely what to change. ELTON ships prescriptive remediation down to the code fix, as a ticket or over ELTON MCP. Every weakness gets one.
Prescriptive fixes for the exact line, delivered where your developers already work. Open a ticket, or run it closed-loop over ELTON MCP.
ELTON reads the mitigation list for each product and release, and maps every control to the chain condition it prevents. If the condition cannot be met, the chain never forms. Try it: remediate a root, watch dependents collapse.
Findings-per-fix is one axis.
The retest it forces is the other, and that is where the months live.
The shared-library fix eliminates the class and keeps validation inside two modules. That is the fix ELTON writes the ticket for.
One release view, every control scored by what it prevents and what it forces you to revalidate. A lock that blocks forty chains but triggers a full-suite retest ranks below the shared-library fix that closes nine and stays inside two modules.
Deploy time is gated by validation, not by the fix.
ELTON computes the retest scope from what actually changed.
The quality system is not the enemy. It asks one fair question: prove the change is safe. A twin that knows what changed, a graph that knows what it breaks, and the use context that bounds the retest can answer it in days.
Check Fixed on a directly exploitable finding, or apply a mitigation, and the planner recomputes live: severity eliminated, reachability rescored, the unexploitable bucket growing.
Start with one device. We build the twin from documentation your quality system already produces, run AI discovery remotely, and show you the graph: the handful to fix, and the evidence for everything else.
Planning remediation by what collapses rather than by how many findings close. ELTON maps every mitigation and fix to the chain conditions it breaks, so the plan is the fewest changes that remove the most exploitable severity. Fix less, eliminate more, and prove it in a what-if before anyone opens a ticket.
Yes. A finding says something is wrong and rarely what to change, so ELTON ships prescriptive remediation down to the code fix. It arrives as a ticket or over ELTON MCP, delivered where your developers already work, and every weakness gets one rather than only the headline findings.
ELTON reads the mitigation list for each product and release and maps every control to the chain condition it prevents. If the condition cannot be met, the chain never forms. Remediate a root finding and its dependents collapse with it, which is the working test of whether a control does real work.
The ones that prevent the most chains, which is not the same as the ones that close the most CVEs. ELTON scores every control in a release view by what it actually prevents and ranks them, so the kiosk lock that blocks forty chains outranks the patch that closes one CVE.
Yes. Check Fixed on a directly exploitable finding, or apply a mitigation, and the planner recomputes live: severity eliminated, reachability rescored, and the unexploitable bucket growing. The result is scoped by the initial access vectors you toggle, and every number traces back to the graph that produced it.