Risk-based vulnerability management tools re-score the same CVE data your scanner already produced, using external signals like threat intel and asset criticality. That is better math on the same input. Spektion generates the input prioritization has been missing, runtime behavioral evidence from the endpoint, and scores with exploit intel and EPSS alongside it. External context alone tells you what is dangerous somewhere; external plus environmental tells you what is exploitable here.
Risk-based vulnerability management (RBVM) tools, such as Nucleus Security, aggregate findings from scanners and other sources, then enrich and re-score them with threat intelligence, EPSS, and asset criticality. This produces better dashboards from data the scanner already generated. Spektion produces new intelligence instead of enriching old: a lightweight endpoint sensor observes execution state, privilege level, network exposure, usage patterns, and blast radius, and Spektion's scoring uses exploit intel and EPSS alongside that runtime context. Prioritization rests on what is exploitable in your environment rather than a probabilistic model of the same CVE list, and runtime context can remove the need for a separate RBVM layer.
New data
First-party runtime observation from the endpoint sensor: execution state, privilege level, network exposure, usage patterns, and blast radius. Enrichment layers re-rank the CVE list your scanner produced. None of them can manufacture this input.
New outcomes
Scoring that combines exploit intel and EPSS with environmental evidence, so the same CVE scores 9.76 where it runs as SYSTEM and 4.00 where it sits idle. Teams push 60 to 80 percent fewer critical CVEs to remediation, each backed by observed evidence.
RBVM re-ranks what a scanner reported. Spektion observes what software does. The enrichment worldview on the left, runtime evidence on the right.
RBVM exists because scanners produce more findings than anyone can act on. The fix was to add a layer that re-ranks those findings with external context. It works, to a point. The dashboards are cleaner and the threat-intel overlays are useful. But the layer inherits the scanner's worldview: every finding it ranks started as a version match, and none of them carry information about whether the software runs, what privilege it holds, or whether anything can reach it.
EPSS estimates the probability that a CVE will be exploited somewhere in the world. It cannot tell you whether the vulnerable code executes on your host. Asset criticality tells you the machine matters. It cannot tell you the vulnerable component on that machine never loads.
The sensor observes runtime behavior directly. That is deterministic evidence, not a probability, and it is the input no enrichment layer can manufacture.
Aggregators like Nucleus sit at a layer above the data and pull from 200+ sources. If you run a large, heterogeneous program, an aggregator has a job to do, and Spektion can be one of its highest-value sources because it generates runtime intelligence the other sources cannot.
…when you want the environmental context an enrichment layer can't produce, or when you want to consolidate scanner plus RBVM into one sensor rather than maintain both.
Enrichment cannot add an input that was never collected. Spektion collects it. That holds whether the layer is a dashboard, an enrichment feed, or an autonomous agent.
Spektion goes beyond basic vulnerability reporting to provide deep context of NIQ's software inventory with comprehensive visibility into risks beyond CVEs, helping us identify and prioritize the most critical opportunities to reduce cyber risk.
No. RBVM tools aggregate and re-score CVE data that scanners already produced, using external signals. Spektion generates new intelligence by observing runtime behavior on the endpoint, which is the input RBVM tools lack. It is a different data source, not a different dashboard.
Nucleus is an aggregator that normalizes findings across many tools and applies prioritization logic on top. Spektion is one of the sources that can feed it, generating runtime exploitability evidence that scanners and threat-intel feeds cannot. They can work together, or Spektion's context can reduce the need for a separate prioritization layer.
EPSS and threat intel describe global exploitation likelihood. They do not know whether the vulnerable software runs on your host, what privilege it holds, or whether it is reachable. Spektion's scoring uses exploit intel and EPSS alongside runtime context from your environment: external signals plus environmental evidence, which is what makes a priority defensible to remediation teams.
Yes. Spektion integrates with ticketing and workflow tools (ServiceNow, Jira) and security platforms, and can deliver runtime exploitability evidence into an existing RBVM or aggregator as a new source.
The sensor is lightweight: under 2% CPU overhead and no measurable performance impact. It observes passively, with no code injection or process modification, and runs on Windows, macOS, and Linux across endpoints and servers.
First runtime data lands within minutes of deploying the sensor. A typical proof-of-value runs three weeks across 50 to 500 endpoints: deploy in week one, review findings in week two, then quantify the queue reduction against your existing prioritization in week three.
Bring a slice of your environment to a demo and see your queue reranked by what's actually exploitable, with a lightweight sensor and no rip-and-replace.