Skip to content
MSSP Alternative

Run the program — not a managed services ticket queue.

Valentra Labs is an alternative to the MSSP model: instead of a vendor portal of alerts, you get an operating layer that runs your cybersecurity program and reports decisions.

See How Valentra Works See Pricing
The problem

An alerts queue is not a program.

An MSSP watches telemetry and sends tickets. It does not run the cybersecurity program — the controls, evidence, and decisions a board reviews still have no owner.

Someone still has to own the controls, the evidence, and the decision.

  • 01 / 03 An MSSP watches telemetry and sends tickets; the program behind the tickets has no owner.
  • 02 / 03 Alerts pile up faster than they are resolved, and none of them roll up to a decision.
  • 03 / 03 When the board asks about posture, a vendor portal of alerts is not an answer.

Insight

Insight
You do not need more alerts. You need someone to run the program.

The Valentra operating principle

The Valentra approach

The Valentra approach: the program itself, operated.

Valentra Labs operates the program itself through the Managed Security Program. Valentra Nexus runs assets, risk, controls, evidence, and work, and produces a board-ready Decision Packet — not a queue of alerts.

  • Valentra Labs operates the cybersecurity program, not a ticket queue.
  • Valentra Nexus runs assets, risk, controls, evidence, and work in one record.
  • Signals from your existing tools attach to the risks and controls they inform.
  • A board-ready Decision Packet reports posture and decisions, not alert volume.
Outcome

What leadership gets an operating layer, not a portal

  • 01 / 03 A program that is run, with an owner and a record.
  • 02 / 03 Decisions the board can act on instead of alert counts.
  • 03 / 03 Your existing tools, tied to the risks they actually inform.
The difference

Same category. Different model.

Traditional MSSP

A managed alerts queue

  • Monitors telemetry and forwards alerts as tickets.
  • Leaves controls, evidence, and decisions to the customer.
  • Reports alert volume, not program posture.
Valentra

An operated program

  • Runs the program on Valentra Nexus, above the tools.
  • Owns controls and evidence, and tracks the work.
  • Reports a board-ready Decision Packet.
Consequence

What a ticket queue leaves undone

  • Unowned controls

    The alerts arrive, but no one is operating the controls behind them.

  • Alert fatigue

    Volume grows until real signal is lost in the noise.

  • No board view

    Leadership gets ticket counts where it needs posture and decisions.

  • Evidence gaps

    Nothing collects the evidence an auditor or the board will ask for.

Impact

The first thirty days

  1. Days 1–10 Connect
    • Existing tools and signals are inventoried and mapped.
    • Assets and top risks are identified in one record.
  2. Days 11–20 Operate
    • Controls are activated and assigned owners.
    • Signals attach to the risks and controls they inform.
  3. Days 21–30 Report
    • The first Decision Packet reports posture, not alert volume.
    • Leadership sees a program being run, not a queue being watched.

Built for the committee that owns the decision

This speaks most to

The board-ready Decision Packet this produces

Every Valentra Labs program produces the same artifact: a board-ready Decision Packet carrying the situation, options, recommendation, evidence, and approval chain — generated by Valentra Nexus.

Decision Packet · v1.0

Q2 2026 — Crown-Jewel Risk Disposition

pkt_2026-04-17_a3f8e1

Situation

Q2 program review covers the crown-jewel ePHI store and its supporting control envelope. 487 endpoints catalogued across three network segments; 12 unsanctioned SaaS surfaces detected by the shadow-IT scan. Continuous monitoring posture is operating; the residual question is risk acceptance for two compensating-control gaps surfaced this cycle.

Risk & Impact

14 critical findings scored against the revenue-at-risk model. Two compensating gaps (vendor-SOC-2 attestation lapse + patch-cycle #38 awaiting CAB sign-off) carry residual risk of $1.4M in unmitigated regulatory exposure if a HITRUST audit lands before remediation closes. Patient-data confidentiality remains the load-bearing impact dimension.

Options

  1. Accept residual risk through Q3, with quarterly board re-review.
  2. Accelerate remediation by re-prioritizing the patch cycle ahead of the planned Q3 platform migration (cost: 2 engineer-weeks).
  3. Transfer risk via expanded cyber-insurance rider (cost: $48K/yr premium delta; coverage gap on ePHI exfiltration remains).

Recommendation

Pursue Option 2 — accelerate remediation. The 2 engineer-weeks of effort cost is recoverable in Q3; the residual exposure is asymmetric (regulatory floor of $1.4M vs. ~$120K labor delta). Document the patch-cycle re-prioritization as a logged decision with the program owner; close the SOC-2 attestation gap via vendor outreach in the same window. Insurance rider deferred to Q4 review.

Evidence

Twelve evidence artifacts back the recommendation — asset inventory, control mapping, vendor SOC-2 status, residual-risk model, patch-cycle telemetry, and the prior packet's audit trail. One control attestation is overridden with a documented compensating-control narrative; two vendor attestations are pending the Q2 refresh window.
ArtifactHashStatusDetailCaptured
Asset inventory snapshot — 487 endpoints#a3f8e1b2verified—
Control mapping cross-walk — 93 controls#b7c4d9e0verified—
Vendor SOC-2 attestation — current#c9d0e2f1pendingRefresh window opens 2026-05-12; vendor confirmed window…
Vendor SOC-2 attestation — secondary processor#d2e3f4a5pending—
Residual-risk model — revenue-at-risk#e1f2a3b4verified—
Patch cycle #38 — CAB queue position#f3a4b5c6overridden—
Overridden per compensating-control narrative — see attached
Penetration test report — Q1 follow-up#a5b6c7d8stale—
Prior packet audit trail — pkt_2026-01-09_b8c4e2#b6c7d8e9verified—

Approval Chain

CIO and CISO have signed. The CCO signature is pending receipt of the vendor-SOC-2 refresh; the program owner has logged the override and the compensating-control narrative.
  1. Chief Information OfficerM. AlvarezSigned 2026-04-17T14:08:11Z
  2. Chief Information Security OfficerJ. ParkSigned 2026-04-17T14:18:42Z
  3. Chief Compliance Officer—Pending signatureAwaiting vendor SOC-2 refresh — window opens 2026-05-12
Generated by Valentra Nexuspkt_2026-04-17_a3f8e1
FAQ

The questions we hear most.

Do we have to replace our current tools?

No. Valentra Nexus operates above the tools you already run, tying their signals to the risks and controls in your program rather than replacing them.

How is this different from an MSSP or MDR?

An MSSP monitors telemetry and forwards alerts. Valentra Labs operates the program itself — the controls, evidence, work, and decisions — and reports a board-ready Decision Packet.

Who responds to alerts?

Signals are triaged against the risks and controls they inform, so response is tied to the program rather than to an undifferentiated queue. Valentra Labs operates that process.

What does the board actually see?

A Decision Packet that summarizes posture, open risk, and recommended actions — drawn from the operated program, not a portal of alerts.

See How Valentra Works See Pricing

Valentra Labs is an alternative to the MSSP model: instead of a vendor portal of alerts, it operates the cybersecurity program itself — assets, risk, controls, evidence, and work on Valentra Nexus — and reports a board-ready Decision Packet, not a ticket queue.

as of