Skip to main content
Internal red-team · April 2026 · no third-party pentest yet

Security & Trust
Verified, Not Just Claimed

Internal red-team self-assessment (April 2026): 5 high and 2 medium findings, all fixed, each with a regression test. No third-party penetration test yet. Detection scored on a 2,580-sample held-out set it was never trained on: 0.788 recall · 0.857 precision, 3.12% false-positive rate. Hash-chained audit log, with 7-year WORM archival when S3 Object Lock is configured.

Internal Red-Team · Apr 2026
3.12% FPR · Held-Out Set
HMAC-SHA256 Audit Chain
PBKDF2 600K Iterations
14-Framework Mapped
0
Open critical / high
Apr 2026 internal red-team
7
Findings fixed
each with a regression test
3.12%
False-positive rate
2,084 held-out benign prompts
14
Compliance frameworks
2,000+ controls mapped
7yr
WORM retention
when S3 Object Lock is configured
8
CI security scanners
CodeQL · Trivy · ZAP …
TLS 1.2+
In transit
HSTS preload
600K
PBKDF2 iters
OWASP 2024 spec

Why Security & Trust Matter

When you secure APIs, AI agents, LLM traffic, and deploy plugins — you need to trust the security platform itself

The Security Paradox

1

Your Security Tool is an Attack Vector

Every security platform you add to your stack becomes a potential target. If your API security gateway is breached, attackers have full visibility into your APIs and can disable protections.

2

Black Box Trust Problem

Most security vendors ask you to trust their infrastructure without visibility. You don't know who has access to your logs, how data is encrypted, or if compliance controls actually work.

3

Vendor Lock-In Risk

Cloud-only security platforms create single points of failure. If the vendor has an outage, your APIs go down. If they change pricing, you're stuck. If they shut down, you lose everything.

The G8KEPR Approach

Security Testing, Stated Plainly

Internal red-team self-assessment (April 2026): 5 high and 2 medium findings fixed, each with a regression test; no third-party penetration test yet. A CI regression-stability gate runs the detection corpus on every commit with zero false positives on benign inputs — regression fails the build.

Tamper-Evident Audit Trail

Audit log entries written to append-only storage with SHA-256 integrity verification — modification breaks downstream hash verification. 84-month WORM archival when S3 Object Lock is configured. Three verification levels (full chain, single entry, last-N).

Self-Hosting Available · No Lock-In

Run G8KEPR as SaaS or deploy on your own infrastructure via Docker containers and Kubernetes Helm charts. Export all data anytime in standard formats (JSON, CSV). Built on open standards (REST, OAuth, JWT) for portability.

Enterprise Security Controls

Production-ready security features protecting your APIs and AI agents

TLS 1.2 and 1.3

AES-256-GCM and ChaCha20-Poly1305 cipher suites. HSTS preload. mTLS between sensors and the collector.

AES-256-GCM at Rest

Application-level encryption for API keys, OAuth secrets, TOTP, webhook secrets, MCP secrets. 96-bit nonce per operation, 128-bit auth tag.

PBKDF2 + bcrypt

PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA256 with 600,000 iterations (OWASP 2024). Passwords use bcrypt at cost factor 12+. Timing-safe comparisons everywhere.

HMAC Keyed Audit Chain

Each entry signed with HMAC-SHA256 + deployment-specific key. Genesis block derived from the key itself. DB access alone cannot forge a valid chain entry.

7-Year WORM Retention

90 days hot in PostgreSQL (monthly partitions); 7 years cold in S3 with Object Lock COMPLIANCE mode when archival is configured. Self-hosted deployments set their own bucket.

Three Verification Levels

Full-chain verification (every entry), single-entry spot check, and last-N rapid integrity check. Detect any retroactive modification by recomputing hashes.

8 CI Security Scanners

Every merge gates on CodeQL, Bandit, Trivy, pip-audit, npm audit, OWASP ZAP, Gitleaks, and Semgrep. Build fails on any new finding.

Key Rotation w/ Fallback

JWT_SECRET rotates every 90 days, ENCRYPTION_KEY every 1 year. Decryption keeps previous key as fallback so rotation is zero-downtime.

Correction · September 2026

Our Security Testing, Correctly Labelled

Until September 2026 this page described an April 2026 external penetration test by “Pentx Security”. That was mislabelled. The work was an internal red-team self-assessment, and no third-party penetration test has been done yet.

What the internal assessment found is real: 5 high and 2 medium issues, all fixed, each with a regression test in the repository. The three medium findings previously listed here (robots.txt, marketing-subdomain headers, IPv6 rate-limit normalisation) came from the mislabelled report, had no tests behind them, and have been withdrawn.

Retracted: “The MCP Design Flaw Affecting 200,000+ Servers”. That post reported original research — a passive scan of public MCP server configurations, with percentages for how many lacked tool-registration authentication. No such scan was ever run. There is no scanner, no dataset and no methodology behind it, so the post has been unpublished rather than corrected, and the figures should not be cited by anyone who read it. The protocol-level concern it described — that MCP’s flat tool namespace has no cryptographic binding between a tool name and a server identity — is real and is why our own interception path pins tool definitions by hash, but we have no measurement of how widespread the exposure is. We will not publish one until we have data.

Held-Out Detection Test

0.788 Recall · 3.12% FPR

Detection is scored on a frozen 2,580-sample held-out set it was never trained on: 0.788 recall, 0.857 precision, 3.12% false-positive rate. The test fails the build on any regression.

Held-out set: 496 attacks and 2,084 benign prompts.

Recall
0.788
391 / 496 attacks caught
Precision
0.857
65 false positives
FPR
3.12%
65 / 2,084 benign flagged
Detection under load: 99.71% threat-analysis success across 2,424 concurrent requests. Cache-hit overhead: under 1 millisecond.
Threat Model

STRIDE Coverage · All Six

Each STRIDE category mapped to a concrete platform mitigation, not generic hand-waving:

Spoofing
JWT signature validation · API key hashing · X-Forwarded-For validation
Tampering
Parameterized queries · CSP · CSRF tokens · hash-chain audit
Repudiation
HMAC-SHA256 hash-chained audit log · 7-year WORM archival when configured
Info Disclosure
Error sanitization · PII redaction · timing-safe comparisons
Denial of Service
Redis sliding-window rate limit · circuit breakers · body-size cap · timeouts
Elevation of Privilege
RBAC · RLS org_id checks · scope validation · JTI replay prevention

Compliance & Certifications

Building towards comprehensive compliance with transparency

2,000+ controls mapped across 12 compliance frameworks with automated assessment, plus 8 reference catalogs. Every audit-log entry, every rate-limit event, every policy decision is mapped to specific control IDs — auditors get exports, not spreadsheets. Maturity language follows the data-room baseline (March 2026).

115 controls
NIST 800-53 Rev5
55 controls
PCI DSS v4
197
CSA CCM v4
153
CIS Controls v8
110+
CMMC 2.0
106
NIST CSF 2.0
93
ISO 27001:2022
84
FedRAMP
72
NIST AI RMF
64
SOC 2
48
HIPAA
27
ISO 42001
23
EU AI Act
22
MITRE ATLAS
SOC 2 Type I
Ready for audit
SOC 2 Type II
Observation in progress
GDPR
Controls implemented
HIPAA
BAA workflow available
EU AI Act
Article mapping complete (Art. 9, 11-15)
ISO 27001:2022
Aligned (not certified)

Honest Compliance Boundaries

G8KEPR provides the technical controls and evidence — your auditor issues the certification. The maturity labels above match our internal data-room baseline. Below is what we will and will not say about ourselves until attested by a third party.

We say
  • · SOC 2 Type II observation in progress
  • · HIPAA-Ready with BAA workflow
  • · GDPR controls implemented (Art. 5, 12, 17, 28, 32)
  • · EU AI Act Article mapping complete (9, 11-15)
  • · ISO 27001-aligned (controls mapped)
  • · FedRAMP NIST 800-53 mapping artifacts available
We do NOT say (until attested)
  • · SOC 2 Type II Certified
  • · HIPAA Certified
  • · GDPR Certified
  • · EU AI Act Certified
  • · ISO 27001 Certified
  • · FedRAMP Authorized (no ATO yet)

GDPR Data Subject Rights · Implemented

Art. 15Right of Access
Data subject access request workflow generates a full data export per user
Art. 16Right to Rectification
Tracked via deletion_requests table
Art. 17Right to Erasure
Deletion covers PostgreSQL, Redis sessions, audit-log redaction. Backup/log PII tracked separately.

How Our Security Is Checked

What has been tested, by whom, and what has not happened yet

Penetration Testing

Last testApril 2026 (internal red-team)
Performed byG8KEPR internal red-team; no third-party test yet
ScopeAPI security, MCP security, AI gateway and verification surfaces
Findings5 high and 2 medium, all fixed with regression tests
Third-party testNot yet scheduled

Full report available under NDA. Contact security@g8kepr.com

Pattern Pack Signing

SignatureEd25519 over the canonical pack manifest
VerificationMCP sensor, before load; fails closed on a bad or expired key
Release keyNot yet published

Public key pinning

The release public key will be published with the first signed pack so customers can pin it. Until then the sensor ships a placeholder key and refuses to load packs signed with it.

Why Choose G8KEPR for Security?

Secure your security platform

Tested, Then Pinned

Internal red-team self-assessment (April 2026): 5 high and 2 medium findings fixed, each with a regression test. No third-party penetration test yet. Findings published, not hidden.

CI-Gated Quality

A CI regression-stability gate runs the detection corpus on every commit with zero false positives on benign inputs — any detection regression fails the build. Plus 8 security scanners (CodeQL, Bandit, Trivy, pip-audit, npm audit, OWASP ZAP, Gitleaks, Semgrep) gate every merge.

Tamper-Evident by Design

Enterprise security controls built-in: TLS 1.2+ and AES-256 encryption, RBAC with MFA, append-only audit logs, Ed25519-verified pattern packs, and an internal red-team self-assessment (April 2026).

Security & Compliance FAQs

Common questions about G8KEPR security and trust

Questions About
Security or Compliance?

We're transparent about our security practices and compliance status.
Contact our security team for detailed discussions about your requirements.

Run on your own infrastructure • Full data control • Enterprise security