An agent acts. Suron AI is what keeps up with it.

A model reads. An agent holds an identity, carries permissions and decides its own next call — and the MCP server in front of it hands over the tools. Suron AI finds that surface, attacks it, and holds the call before it executes.

Suron AI puts an object on that surface: an asset to grade, a target to attack, a call to hold while policy is checked, and a finding that arrives with the change to make rather than an alert. It is one assistant from end to end, which is the only reason the fix knows what the finding was scored against.

Agentless discovery · adversarial testing · pre-execution control

An agent with tool permissions is a new class of asset

Posture tooling has an object for a bucket, a role and a virtual machine. It has none for a caller that chooses what to do next and spends a real credential doing it.

What an MCP server exposes

Tools, resources and prompts. Every tool is a callable with a real credential behind it — a database connection, a repository token, an internal API key. The server is an authorisation boundary that nobody wrote a policy for.

Why that makes the agent an asset

It runs unattended, its permissions are standing rather than requested, and the credential is spent on its judgement rather than a person's. Excessive permissions and rogue agents are AI-native risks precisely because a traditional posture tool has no object to hang them on.

What Suron AI does about it

Discovers every agent framework and MCP server across cloud, code and SaaS, maps each tool to the identity and the data it can reach, attacks it with 6 agentic attack classes and 15+ MCP risk classes, and scores what comes back against MITRE ATLAS, EU AI Act 2024, NIST AI RMF 1.0, ISO/IEC 42001, OWASP LLM Top 10.

Suron AI maps the OWASP Agentic Top 10

Mapped clause by clause · OWASP ASI 2026
  1. 01Agent Goal & Instruction Hijack
  2. 02Tool Misuse
  3. 03Identity & Privilege Abuse
  4. 04Agentic Supply Chain
  5. 05Unexpected Code Execution
  6. 06Memory & Context Poisoning
  7. 07Insecure Inter-Agent Communication
  8. 08Cascading & Resource Failures
  9. 09Human-Agent Trust Exploitation
  10. 10Rogue & Unmanaged Agents

The finding arrives with the policy already written

A row that tells you an agent is over-permissioned is a ticket for somebody else. Every row in this queue carries the change that closes it, and nothing in it is a severity label with a link to a vendor doc.

Open findings5 in queue
Rogue agentSupport agent holds write access to the production ticket store it only ever reads.fix ready
Prompt injectionUntrusted page content reaching an MCP tool call without an intermediate check.fix ready
API exposureFilesystem MCP server reachable from the cluster network with no authentication.fix ready
Prompt leakageSystem prompt returned verbatim inside an error response.fix ready
Excessive permissionsAgent identity granted blanket storage access where read-only is all it has used.fix ready
Generated fixverified on re-scan

Right-size the agent's storage role

Replace blanket storage access with a read-only policy scoped to the buckets the agent has actually called. Suron AI writes the policy, names every control the change answers, and re-scans to confirm it held.

  1. 01

    Right-size the policy

    Generated from the calls the agent has actually made, not from what the role is named.

  2. 02

    Map to controls

    The same change answered against every framework that asks for it, once.

  3. 03

    Verify

    A re-scan confirms the fix landed, and nothing is closed until it agrees.

AI-generated remediation
Step-by-step guidance
Control mapping
Compliance impact
Verification
Verified
Nothing closes until a re-scan agrees

The tool call is the last place a mistake is still reversible

Once an agent's call has executed, the row is deleted, the ticket is closed, the branch is pushed. Suron AI sits in front of the call rather than in the report afterwards.

At the boundary

allow

The call goes to the tool untouched, and the decision is recorded with it.

redact

The arguments or the result travel without the part policy says must not.

approve

The call is held at the boundary until a human releases it.

deny

The call never reaches the tool, and the agent is told why.

Read before it executesPolicy per tool
  • Tool arguments
  • Tool results
  • Intent drift
  • Human approval
  • Session history
4
Ways out of the boundary. A call takes exactly one.

Policy is written per tool, not per agent — the same runtime can be trusted with one call and held on the next. When it has to stop entirely, there is a session kill switch.

One assistant, from the finding to the proof

Discovery, prioritisation, correlation, remediation and reporting are one line of work, not five products. That is the only reason a finding can arrive already carrying its fix: the thing that found it is the thing that knows what the fix has to satisfy.

Discovery

Surfaces the agents, servers and tools nobody registered.

Prioritisation

Scores by exposure and blast radius, not by scanner severity.

Correlation

Chains findings across identity, data and runtime into one path.

Remediation

Writes the fix and names the controls it satisfies.

Reporting

Packages the evidence the way an auditor reads it.

All of it runs on the same asset spine as the rest of the platform — the agent the red team attacked and the agent the gate refused a call for are the same object, with the same identifier, in the same evidence trail. See the whole platform.

Bring us one agent.

Connect a runtime and an MCP server read-only, and see what Suron AI finds, what it would have blocked, and what it writes back.