Continuous threat modeling
From the user story, into the ticket, verified at the PR.
ExploreUse case · Traditional threat modeling
When the risk demands it, model it by hand.
When the risk demands a deliberate, expert-led threat model, run it in Reykur: model the design together on a live canvas, work from a library that knows exactly what applies, and walk away with a threat model that keeps working after the review ends.
external · internettrust boundary · pci scopecard data · tlswrites · piieventsmajatomas
Web clientexternal
Payments APIservice · oauth
Ledger DBdatastore · pii
Audit logdatastore
Payments APIThreats4OAuth token theft via open redirectCredential stuffing on loginSession fixation across subdomainsControls3PKCE on authorization requestsRate-limit authentication endpoints
Before · Act I
You do not start from nothing.
Half your session used to go on redrawing a diagram everyone in the room already had. Three ways to skip the blank canvas.
The photo you already take
Upload the whiteboard photo
You already photograph the whiteboard. Upload it and get a real model instead of a dead JPEG: components, flows and boundaries resolved from the drawing.
Or the doc
Upload the design doc
An RFC, a spec or a user story becomes the first draft of the diagram. The room starts arguing about the design, not drawing it.
Or a few answers
Answer guided questions
No artifact at all? Structured questions about components, data, boundaries and deployment produce the starting model.
During · Act II
A canvas built for threat modeling.
The concepts you already work with, components, data flows and trust boundaries, on a live canvas with the whole team, backed by an assistant that answers and edits.
Reykur assistant · payments-rewrite
AssistedA model you can talk to
Ask, and the assistant answers from the model. Tell it, and it edits the diagram: components, controls and boundaries, applied as the room talks.
TogetherReal-time and multiplayer
Simultaneous editing with live presence, not sync on save. Everyone in the review works the same model, wherever they sit.
No re-trainingYour method, in hours
STRIDE sessions, DFD reviews, boundary walks: run them the way your team already does, with the tooling that was always missing. The setup, the write-up and the follow-through stop eating days, and the result is both more accurate and faster.
During · Act III
Threats fire on conditions, not on a model's mood.
Every threat in the library carries an explicit, inspectable condition. A reviewer in the room can read it, and argue with it.
GroundedBuilt on leading frameworks
OWASP ASVS and other established standards, restated as controls with STRIDE and CWE on every threat. Openly attributed, never invented in the moment.
DeterministicOnly what applies to you
A system with no passwords will never see a password threat, and a system with them will never miss one. A condition either holds or it does not. Generic AI advice cannot make that promise.
HonestLevels never hide threats
The assurance level filters which requirements are assigned, never which threats are emitted. A matched threat above the target is still a real risk, and is still reported.
Payments APIyour system & its features
Added to the model
Credential stuffing3 controls
OAuth redirect hijack2 controls
Malicious file content2 controls
Rate-limit bypass2 controls
Discarded
XML external entitiesno xml parsing
SMS OTP interceptionno sms-based auth
After · Act IV
The meeting ends. The model does not.
A sharper session while everyone is in the room. Afterwards, the model, the decisions and the report keep working.
The report, generated from the model
Executive summary, architecture, threat register, controls, risk posture and signed acceptances. Sixteen sections produced directly from the model, exportable as PDF, CSV or a password-protected share link.
Every session feeds your security context layer
Components, threats, controls and accepted risks flow into a living, organization-wide security context layer. It informs the next review, drives risk decisions across teams, and gives security leadership a live picture of posture instead of a folder of stale documents.
After · Act V
The manual model does not stay an island.
Three reasons the review keeps paying off.
Continuous
The same model goes continuous
You built it by hand because this system deserved it. From the next sprint on, it maintains itself: the continuous loop keeps it current, and your coding agents' plans get checked against it.
Owned
It has named owners
Architecture, security, engineering and product each hold a defined seat on the model: who can edit, who can accept risk, who can only read. Every threat has an owner, and every accepted risk has a name against it.
Org-wide
It rolls up into org-wide context
One review tells you about one system. Twelve of them, aggregated into risk scores, trends and a cross-project graph, tell you whether the program is working.
Every control traces to
OWASP ASVS 5.0STRIDECWESOC 2
The room was never the problem.The aftermath was.
See a real design review run end to end, from whiteboard photo to signed-off model to a live org view, in 20 minutes.
Explore the other use cases
Secure vibe coding
Agent plans reviewed against your threat model, before any code is written.
ExploreGet early access
Be among the first to try Reykur and help shape continuous product security.
No spam. We'll only email you about Reykur.