CyberProof and the art of paying attention

Consider a warning that arrives thirty thousand times a week. At that volume, the problem becomes arithmetic. Every investigation competes with the next one. A security team can own the right equipment and still struggle to give the right event its attention. CyberProof has built its business around that uncomfortable possibility: the missing ingredient may be the operation connecting the tools.

A shorter queue, a harder question

In CyberProof’s account of a multinational manufacturing conglomerate, an on-premises security monitoring system had become difficult to scale and integrate. The client wanted a move to Google SecOps without interrupting ongoing operations. CyberProof won the implementation and continuing operations through a competitive selection process.

The unglamorous details explain the proposition. CyberProof connected roughly 4,000 log sources, built six custom parsers to make information usable, developed about 200 detection use cases and added 18 integrations for automated response. The company reports that weekly alerts fell from more than 30,000 to 2,500, while mean response time improved by 85%. These are results from one supplier-published case, rather than a promise for the next customer.

The service between the products

CyberProof, established in 2017 and owned by UST, sits in the managed security market. Its customer brings a complicated environment: cloud services, office networks, identities, endpoints and an internal security team with finite hours. CyberProof brings additional people and continuing operational work. Microsoft and Google are central partners, alongside integrations with other security technologies.

MDR means managed detection and response. MXDR extends that work across more of the environment. Behind the abbreviations are practical jobs: monitor events around the clock, investigate suspicious behavior, hunt for activity that escaped existing rules and improve the rules themselves. Digital forensics handles the deeper reconstruction of an incident. Exposure management asks which weaknesses deserve attention first.

The distinction matters when choosing an alternative. An enterprise might staff its own security operations center, hire another managed provider or assemble a service around its existing platform. CyberProof’s case rests on integrating those existing investments and sharing operations with the customer. The buyer is purchasing continuing execution, with responsibilities that need to be understood as clearly as the technology.

The bank that changed its shopping list

A financial services customer offers a useful buying lesson. According to CyberProof, the organization initially considered separate security products, then changed direction toward CyberProof with Microsoft support. It wanted one vendor supporting its XDR capability, reducing the gaps and coordination problems that separate products could create.

CyberProof integrated the Microsoft security stack with its existing managed service, unified monitoring and introduced automated playbooks. Reusable infrastructure-as-code templates handled repetitive setup work. The company reports a 50% reduction in everyday SOC operating costs and 20-30% optimization in infrastructure and cloud consumption.

Those percentages answer a narrower question than the price of the engagement. They describe operating improvements in that customer’s environment. A buyer comparing proposals should account for implementation, cloud consumption, platform licenses and service scope, then ask which existing costs can actually be retired. A cheaper workflow and a cheaper total program are separate calculations.

Before the alarm, after the alarm

CyberProof’s December 2024 acquisition of Interpres Security widened its focus. The companies had worked together since late 2023. Interpres added technology for continuously assessing exposure and security controls, connecting relevant adversaries with weaknesses in a customer’s defenses. The commercial logic is straightforward: monitoring is more useful when the team understands what its tools might miss.

March 2026 brought CDC Reveal360, a customizable view of security posture and service performance. Different users can examine different questions: an analyst’s coverage gaps, a service manager’s delivery metrics, an executive’s risk picture. It is included with managed services and available independently through Microsoft and Google cloud marketplaces. That makes transparency part of the offering: the client can inspect the work as well as receive it.

“Large enterprises are not starting from a blank slate.”Duncan Brown, IDC, in CyberProof’s July 2026 announcement

In July, CyberProof launched Agentic MXDR. AI agents help with investigations, threat hunting and detection tuning, while human specialists validate consequential decisions. The company says the service can handle up to two-thirds of investigations autonomously. That ceiling is a company claim; its usefulness depends on the cases, environment and controls. The human checkpoint deserves as much scrutiny as the automation rate.

The service also depends on a supply of people who can challenge a machine’s conclusion. CyberProof’s Tomer Weinstein internship, run with Tech-Career, provides a year of training and mentoring for Ethiopian Israelis entering technology. A separate Aharai-Tech partnership has involved employees mentoring 44 students on projects. These programs put a practical dimension on the familiar industry complaint about missing security skills: some of the work is teaching the next analyst.

The part worth borrowing

Another published case makes the operational stakes concrete. A pharmaceutical technology company’s misconfigured VPN allowed an attacker to bypass two-factor authentication. The organization had security products but lacked a dedicated security operations capability. CyberProof says its forensic team identified the root cause within six hours and contained the intrusion within 24. The customer subsequently signed an ongoing managed detection agreement.

In a separate manufacturing detection-engineering case, CyberProof describes moving 202 use cases from Splunk to Google Chronicle and adding 100 new rules. The lesson is maintenance: detections need to follow changing threats, with coverage measured against relevant attack techniques.

The repeatable lesson is to connect each relevant threat to an asset, a detection and an assigned response. Ask who can authorize containment before an incident forces the question. This approach depends on usable telemetry, compatible integrations and people able to carry out remediation. With missing data or unclear authority, an elegant dashboard still leaves a team waiting. CyberProof’s proposition is strongest where the customer is ready to turn that shared view into shared work.