Capability
Vulnerability prioritization
A score that is a sum of named factors, so a technician can see why something ranked where it did.
Who this is for
MSPs with a queue longer than the month
You cannot work everything, and the order you choose has to be explainable to the customer paying for it.
Teams whose scanner output nobody trusts
A queue padded with findings that do not apply costs credibility before it costs time.
The problem it addresses
Severity alone describes a vulnerability in the abstract. It does not know whether the affected product is actually installed, whether the version is in range, whether the service is reachable, or whether anyone is exploiting it this week. Ranking on it produces a queue that is technically correct and operationally useless.
How Exploit Hound handles it
- 1Applicability is checked before a finding consumes anyone's time
A version banner is not proof. The platform checks whether the vulnerability genuinely applies to that target: the right product, the affected version range, and the configuration that makes it reachable.
- 2Exploitation likelihood is a separate factor from severity
EPSS and CISA KEV listing are weighted as their own inputs rather than folded into a severity number.
- 3Evidence strength is scored explicitly
Detected, high confidence and safely validated are distinct, and a claim is never stronger than the evidence behind it.
What the result rests on
- Product, version range and configuration checked against the asset record
- EPSS score and CISA KEV listing at the time of scoring
- Public exploit availability
- Reachability, asset criticality and the number of paths the finding participates in
- Threat-intelligence matches and deception interactions on the asset
- The stored scoring version, so an old score stays explainable
The words this page uses are defined on the resources page: detected, high confidence and safely validated mean different things, and a claim is never stronger than the evidence behind it.
What is generally available, and what is Beta
Read from the same registry as the integrations page, so this table cannot disagree with it. Implemented and tested, including against recorded provider behavior, but not yet validated against a live vendor tenant.
| Capability | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Explainable, versioned risk scoring | Generally Available | |
| Vulnerability intelligence (CVE, EPSS, KEV, exploit availability) | Generally Available | |
| Fix First remediation ranking | Generally Available | |
| Deception / honeypots | Generally Available | |
| Web application assessment | Beta | Beta — basic checks, not a DAST product |
| Cloud posture (Azure, AWS, Google Cloud) | Beta | Beta ×3 — never run against a live account |
In the console
See it against your own estate
A guided evaluation runs Exploit Hound against a scope you choose and authorize, and produces a measured result rather than a demonstration.
Request a guided evaluation Pricing Trust Center Integration status Product tour