County, city, education, emergency response, and justice environments with limited SOC staff.
Provide a 24/7 evidence-producing security team that combines cloud posture, endpoint, identity, email, public-safety UAS, and incident response with clear escalation paths.
Sector problems
Regulations and frameworks
Mappings help you collect and organize evidence. An assessor, examiner, auditor, or authorizing official still decides whether the obligation is met. The platform does not certify an organization or file a regulatory notice.
| Framework | What it asks for | How the platform helps |
|---|---|---|
| FBI CJIS Security PolicyOfficial source ↗ | Protect criminal justice information with access control, auditing, encryption, and incident response. Version 6.0 was released in December 2024. | Signed log artifacts, MFA gap checks, and evidence handling support the agency's CJIS security officer. The auditor makes the determination. |
| FERPAOfficial source ↗ | Protect the privacy of student education records. | Local models can keep inference inside the district. Reports can carry a FERPA overlay. External model use for student data stays behind approval. |
| NIST SP 800-53 and NIST CSFOfficial source ↗ | Many states use these as the control baseline for agencies and for cloud programs such as GovRAMP. | Control and evidence workflows map findings to the baseline. On-premises installation keeps data in agency infrastructure. No GovRAMP or TX-RAMP authorization is claimed for the product. |
| State breach-notification laws | Notify affected residents and regulators on the state's clock. | Incident timelines track the clock. People decide and file the notice. |
| FAA Part 107 and Remote IDOfficial source ↗ | Public-safety drones operate under FAA rules for registration, remote identification, and the operation. | UAS reviews cover firmware, remote identification, geofences, and command links. Flight and radio actions stay evidence-only unless separately authorized. |
Typical workflows
These workflows show how documented capabilities apply. They are not customer case studies, and they do not describe a guaranteed outcome.
Autonomous SOC · ITDR · email security · UAS mission security · human interaction threats · report generator
Select the installed agents and test their models, tools, permissions, and connectors before authorizing the mission. The available catalog depends on your deployment and release.
Agent verification and testing →CJIS · NIST SP 800-53 · NIST CSF · CMMC where applicable · state privacy requirements
Set applicability for your assets, jurisdictions, and system boundaries. Connect control owners, current policies, technical tests, exceptions, and review decisions.
Explore regulatory evidence workflows →01
Define the customer profile, authorized assets, and responsible owners. County, city, education, emergency response, and justice environments with limited SOC staff.
02
Use Autonomous SOC, ITDR, email security workflows with approved credentials and mission limits. Preserve source evidence and failures alongside findings.
03
Assign corrective work, obtain approvals, capture changes, and retest. Export the evidence, exceptions, and status history for business owners and assessors.
Questions for this sector
It maps evidence to the FBI CJIS Security Policy, including signed audit logs, MFA enforcement checks, and evidence handling. The agency's auditor decides compliance.
Yes. Autonomous SOC provides round-the-clock triage and prepares response, with human approval for high-impact actions. The city can run it or consume it through an MSSP.
The platform can run on local models so prompts stay in the district. External use of student data requires approval, and reports can include a FERPA overlay.
No GovRAMP or TX-RAMP status is claimed. Agencies can install it on-premises or in their own cloud tenant, and control mappings follow NIST SP 800-53, which those programs build on.
