← Back to industries
IndustryUpdated 2026-07-06

AI agents for cybersecurity firms

AI agents alongside ConnectWise, ServiceNow, and Tenable. Triage support, evidence collection, and client reporting run so analysts investigate instead of compile.

Systems of record this works alongside

ConnectWiseServiceNowJiraTenable

Starter workflows

Alert triage support

Enrich incoming alerts with asset and context data, group related alerts, draft the initial assessment, and route to the analyst with the evidence assembled, so analysts investigate real incidents instead of sorting noise.

Compliance-evidence collection

For a client's audit or framework, collect the evidence from the source systems, map it to the control, flag the gaps, and draft the evidence package for the consultant to review before it goes to the auditor.

Vulnerability remediation tracking

Track findings from the scanner through remediation, chase the responsible owner, and draft the status report, so the vulnerability backlog gets worked down and the client sees progress.

Client reporting and posture updates

Assemble the security posture report from the tooling and the ticket data, draft the narrative and recommendations, and stage it for the analyst's review, so reporting stops competing with investigation for the team's time.

Analysts are scarce; compilation work is not

A cybersecurity firm's scarcest resource is skilled analyst attention, and too much of it goes to enriching alerts, collecting compliance evidence, and assembling client reports, work that is necessary but not what an analyst is for. Ceven runs that layer around ConnectWise, ServiceNow, Jira, and Tenable, so analysts spend their time investigating and advising. The security tooling and the ticketing system stay the systems of record; Ceven does the enrichment and the assembly around them, with every step logged.

Evidence collection that stops being a fire drill

Preparing a client for an audit or a framework assessment means collecting evidence from a dozen source systems and mapping each artifact to a control, which is a recurring scramble that eats consultant time. Ceven collects the evidence, maps it to the controls, flags the gaps, and drafts the package for the consultant to review before it reaches the auditor. The consultant owns the attestation and the judgment; Ceven does the collection and the mapping, with a full audit trail of where each piece of evidence came from.

The human stays in the loop on every judgment

Security decisions carry consequences, so the operations layer supports the analyst rather than replacing the analyst's judgment. Ceven enriches, groups, and drafts assessments, but the analyst confirms every incident classification and every client-facing conclusion, and Ceven never takes a containment or remediation action on a client system on its own. The research behind any recommendation is cited so it can be verified. The firm keeps its judgment and its tooling, and adds tireless support around them.

Frequently asked

Does the agent respond to or contain security incidents?

No. It enriches alerts, groups them, and drafts assessments for the analyst. Every incident classification and every containment action stays with the human analyst.

Does this work with our SIEM and ticketing?

Ceven integrates with ConnectWise, ServiceNow, Jira, and Tenable on the standard adapter, and connects to the client's source systems for evidence collection on authorization.

How is sensitive client data handled?

It stays inside the tenant with encryption at rest and row-level security, every access is logged, and the research behind any recommendation is cited so conclusions can be verified.

Related industries

Run this on your stack.

Start free