Automated ICT process evidence
Prove what your automated ICT processes actually executed.
Documented workflows and IAM controls do not always prove what happened across systems. Securityv0 provides execution evidence, permission drift visibility, blast-radius analysis, and remediation options for automations, agents, integrations, and service accounts.
The evidence gap: controls do not always prove execution
Financial institutions increasingly rely on ServiceNow workflows, cloud automations, CI/CD jobs, security playbooks, AI agents, OAuth apps, service principals, and integration users. Each workflow may be documented. Each identity may appear governed. But the real execution path is often split across IAM, cloud, SaaS, ticketing, SIEM, and automation platforms.
That creates a practical evidence gap: it is difficult to show what actually executed, under which identity, what systems were touched, what permissions changed after approval, how far the blast radius extends, and which remediation options preserve production workflows.
Where this supports DORA-aligned programs
DORA is the operating context. The concrete gap is automated ICT process evidence: what executed, what changed, what could execute next, and which remediation options reduce exposure.
Program lens
Risk and resilience
Practical question
Can we show evidence that automated ICT processes executed as expected across critical systems?
How Securityv0 helps
Documents execution evidence: identity used, actions taken, systems reached, timeline, and changes from expected behavior.
Program lens
Security operations
Practical question
Can we see blast radius and unauthorized execution paths before they become incident scope?
How Securityv0 helps
Shows what automations, agents, integrations, and service accounts can reach, and where downstream actions exceed intent.
Program lens
Identity governance
Practical question
Can we prove service accounts, OAuth apps, service principals, and integration users have not drifted from approved access?
How Securityv0 helps
Surfaces app permissions, service-account ownership, reachable systems, and permission drift after approval.
Program lens
Third-party and provider workflows
Practical question
Can we understand what vendor-linked automations, MSP workflows, SaaS integrations, and external apps can execute inside the environment?
How Securityv0 helps
Maps external and provider-linked execution paths across internal systems and produces evidence that can be shared with customers or risk teams.
Program lens
Remediation
Practical question
Can we reduce exposure without breaking production workflows?
How Securityv0 helps
Produces remediation options such as permission reduction, workflow owner routing, compensating controls, and prioritized blast-radius reduction.
What Securityv0 provides
A shared evidence layer for risk, security, identity, and platform teams working around the same automated ICT processes.
- What automated ICT processes actually executed, under which identity, and when
- Which automations, agents, integrations, service accounts, OAuth apps, and service principals exist
- Which systems they can reach across Entra, cloud, SaaS, ServiceNow, SIEM, data platforms, and custom workflows
- Where app permissions, service-account access, or reachable systems changed after approval
- Where one workflow or identity creates excessive blast radius or unauthorized execution potential
- Which remediation options reduce exposure without breaking the business process
- What evidence can be shared with risk, resilience, audit, identity, security, and platform teams
ServiceNow workflows are often part of the execution evidence gap
Many regulated firms use ServiceNow to orchestrate IT, security, risk, and operational workflows. But those workflows often depend on integration users, OAuth apps, cloud roles, service principals, and downstream SaaS permissions.
Securityv0 helps teams connect the documented workflow to the identity that executed, the systems reached, the permissions that drifted, and the downstream blast radius outside ServiceNow.
Example path
A ServiceNow automation may start as an approved IT workflow, but the integration identity behind it may later gain access to Entra, AWS, GitHub, Sentinel, or other systems.
Securityv0 shows the resulting execution path, drift, and blast radius.
Built for cross-functional evidence conversations
The same automated ICT process means different things to different teams. Securityv0 gives each team evidence in its own language.
Risk and resilience
Show evidence that critical automated ICT processes executed as expected, changed within control, and have practical remediation options.
Security
Understand blast radius, unauthorized execution potential, and high-impact downstream actions across automations and agents.
Identity and NHI teams
Track service accounts, OAuth apps, service principals, app permissions, ownership, and drift from approved access.
ServiceNow and platform owners
Connect documented workflows to the identities and downstream systems that actually execute outside the platform.
SOC and SIEM teams
Route high-risk execution evidence and drift signals into existing detection, triage, and response workflows.
ICT providers and MSPs
Demonstrate controlled automation practices and remediation options to regulated financial-services customers.
Find your automated ICT process evidence gaps.
Securityv0 helps identify where documented workflows and IAM controls do not prove actual execution, permission drift, blast radius, or safe remediation options.
Securityv0 supports evidence gathering and risk reduction for DORA-aligned programs. It does not provide legal advice or certify compliance.