Why ELTON · Find the 1%

A million findings. Ten that matter.

Discovery is solved to the point of drowning. The unsolved problem is telling which findings can actually hurt your device, and evidencing the difference for a regulator.

The objective, stated plainly

Find the 1% of findings that require fixing. Verify, with executed evidence, why the other 99% do not. Both halves are the product. Neither works without the other.

The real problem

You are not short on findings.
You are short on verdicts.

Component matching casts a wide net on purpose. Run it across a full SBOM and years of CVE history and the raw list runs to the thousands per device. Almost none of it applies to your build, your configuration, or your reachable attack surface. Someone still has to say so, per finding, in writing.

The pile keeps growing

CVE volume climbs every year while analyst headcount does not. Manual triage was losing this race in 2023. It is not close anymore.

Silence is not a disposition

Skipping an irrelevant CVE feels efficient until an auditor asks why it was never assessed. A missing answer reads the same as a missed vulnerability.

Developers act on proof

Send engineering a queue of maybes and they will treat all of it as noise. Send ten verified exploits and they fix ten things. ELTON only sends what is proven.

WHAT COMES IN4,212 findings on one releaseSBOM component matches3,912 findingsScanner and SAST findings214 findingsFuzzing crashes37 findingsResearcher and CISA reports49 findingsTHE GRAPH DECIDESentry vectors produce conditions, findings require themrootdirectconditionalFindings collapse to the few rootsthat are exploitable on this buildrated against the product, not the worst caseWHAT COMES OUTevery verdict carries its evidenceDIRECT6a vulnerability, fixed nowCONDITIONAL19watched, inert once the root is fixedWEAKNESS4,187dismissed with evidence attached
One release, real proportions: 4,212 findings in, 25 worth an engineer's time, and a defensible record for the rest.
Vulnerability vs weakness

Two words your backlog keeps confusing.

ELTON draws one line through every finding, and the line is exploitability on your device as it actually ships.

VULNERABILITY

Exploitable today

Reachable from the actual attack surface and substantiated by an executed test case on the device. This is the 1%. It gets a fix, a timeline, and a re-test that proves the fix worked.

WEAKNESS

Latent, tracked, not urgent

Real code, real flaw, no reachable path today. It stays in the twin and stays watched, because the next architecture change can promote it. It does not page an engineer tonight.

Which word applies cannot be settled by reading source code or quoting a severity score. Exploitability is a runtime question, so ELTON answers it at runtime: by attacking the running device, verifying the exploit remotely or over TestLink™ on your own bench.

The other 99%

Dismissed is not ignored.
Dismissed is evidenced.

Every finding that misses the fix list gets a disposition with proof attached: the reason it does not apply, the test or analysis behind that reason, and a machine readable VEX status your customers can ingest. The 99% stop being a liability and become a record that you looked, tested, and can defend the call.

The short list often shrinks further. The dependency graph traces verified findings to shared root causes, so ten proven exploits can collapse into one engineering fix. Every disposition rests on executed evidence, holds to the FDA Compliance rating standard, and publishes through living reports and VEX.

Go deeper

The reading behind the number.

Why the volume exploded, why point-in-time testing cannot keep up, and what runs instead.

Get started

Find your 1%.

One device, one twin, one report: the short list that needs engineering time, and the evidenced record for everything that does not.

Questions

Common questions about finding the 1%.

What is the difference between a vulnerability and a weakness?

A vulnerability is exploitable today: reachable from the actual attack surface and substantiated by an executed test case on the device. It gets a fix, a timeline, and a re-test that proves the fix worked. A weakness is real code with a real flaw and no reachable path today, so it stays in the twin and stays watched, because the next architecture change can promote it.

Why can our team not just triage the findings ourselves?

Component matching casts a wide net on purpose, so a full SBOM crossed with years of CVE history runs to thousands of findings per device. Almost none of it applies to your build, your configuration, or your reachable attack surface, but someone still has to say so, per finding, in writing. CVE volume climbs every year and analyst headcount does not.

What happens to the vulnerabilities you decide not to fix?

Every finding that misses the fix list gets a disposition with proof attached: the reason it does not apply, the test or analysis behind that reason, and a machine readable VEX status your customers can ingest. Nothing exits the funnel without a status, so the other 99% become a record instead of a liability.

Is it a problem to skip a CVE that clearly does not apply?

Skipping an irrelevant CVE feels efficient until an auditor asks why it was never assessed. Silence is not a disposition, and a missing answer reads the same as a missed vulnerability. Every finding needs a recorded call, including the thousands that turn out to be noise.

Why do developers ignore the vulnerability queue we send them?

Send engineering a queue of maybes and they will treat all of it as noise. Send ten verified exploits and they fix ten things. ELTON only sends what is proven, and the short list often shrinks further when the dependency graph traces several verified findings back to one shared root cause.

Exploitability management for medical devices. FDA §524B methodologyExploitability proven at runtime95% faster than legacy testing Book a Demo
Platform
OverviewAvoid FDA DeficienciesAvoid Consulting FeesDigital Twin TraceabilityAI PentestingExploitability VerificationVulnerability ChainingRemediation OptimizationRemote TestLink™Incident ResponseAutomated VEX & MetricsCVSSv4 Migration
Solutions
Postmarket SurveillanceIncident ResponseSecurity EngineeringRegulatory AffairsFDA §524BEU MDR/CRAEU REDNIS2IMDRF N60 / N73Japan MHLW
Why ELTON
Subscription TestingAI-NativeFDA ComplianceVerified ExploitabilityELTON vs. Legacy TestingThreat-Led AI PentestingMDDT MethodologyCredentialsDevice ModalitiesPricing
Resources
FDA Deficiency ListFDA Testing RequirementsFDA Cyber SOPs & TemplatesRemediation LibraryRegulatory GuidesWebinarsAI NewsletterThe End of Legacy TestingThe AI Vulnerability ExplosionSecurity AdvisoriesWhitepapersIntelligence & Blog
Company
AboutLeadershipCareersPartnershipsContact Meet ELTON
See the graph decide, live >