Launched this week

NeuraPent

Launched this week

Find Out Whats Exploitable. In Hours, Not Weeks.

8 followers

Find Out Whats Exploitable. In Hours, Not Weeks.

8 followers

Traditional pentests are accurate but slow and stale by delivery. NeuraPent closes that gap: autonomous agents map your attack surface, chain findings into real multi-step attack paths, then safely run non-destructive PoCs to prove exploitability before it hits your report. You get verified exploit chains with evidence logs, executive risk ratings, and dev-ready fixes, continuously re-validated as your environment changes.

Launch tags:SaaS•Artificial Intelligence•Security

Launch Team / Built With

Framer AI AgentsDesign and publish professional sites with AI

Promoted

Maker

📌

Hey Product Hunt! I'm Areeba, founder of NeuraPent. I kept running into the same problem in security work: scanners flag theoretical CVEs you have to manually triage, and traditional pentests are accurate but take weeks, by the time you get the report, your environment's already changed. Neither gives you a real answer to "is this actually exploitable, right now?" That question is what NeuraPent is built around. Early on, I focused purely on detection accuracy, but I realized detection alone wasn't enough; the only way to kill false positives for good was to actually attempt exploitation, safely. That shift shaped the whole architecture: autonomous agents that map your attack surface, chain individual weaknesses into real multi-step attack paths (the way an actual attacker would), and run non-destructive PoC exploits to confirm exploitability before anything hits your report. The result is continuous validation instead of a once-a-year snapshot, with zero-agent deployment and evidence-backed findings your dev team can act on immediately. Would love your feedback, what would make this indispensable for your security stack?

Report

2d ago

Love the idea of chaining findings into multi-step paths, that's where most pentest reports fall flat for me. One thing that would make this way more useful: a way to scope what the agents are allowed to probe, so I can run it against staging or a subset of prod without worrying it'll wander into something sensitive.

Report

1d ago

Maker

@erafettin155441 it does have proper scope manager so that AI doesnt wander around things out of scope, at every step its verified thats its performed on in-scope asset, and when AI even shows a hint of trying something out of scope,that action is immediately blocked and AI is given live feedback about the reason

Report

1d ago

Would love to see a Slack or Teams integration that pushes only critical verified chains to a chosen channel as they happen, so our on-call team can react fast instead of waiting for the next report run.

Report

1d ago

Maker

@velieddx thats a solid idea honestly, would definitely consider it in next updates, stay tuned so you know when we ship new features, and keep sharing your opinions, it matters as we are at initial stage

Report

1d ago

Mapped our staging env in under an hour and the chained attack path it surfaced through three internal services was spot on, not something I'd have written a test for myself.

Report

1d ago

Forum Threads

p/neurapent

•

2d ago

Would you trust an AI to safely run PoC exploits against your production environment?

I've been building in the autonomous pentesting space, and this question keeps coming up in conversations with security folks, so I'm curious what this community actually thinks.

Traditional vulnerability scanners flag theoretical risk (version X might be vulnerable to CVE Y) but leave you to manually verify what's real. Manual pentests solve that by actually exploiting things, but only a human tester touches production, on a scoped schedule, with a lot of trust built in over time.

Now that AI agents can chain findings and execute proof-of-concept exploits autonomously, the obvious next question is: would you actually let one run against your live environment?

Curious where people land on this , is it a "never, full stop" for you? Does it depend on the guardrails (non-destructive PoCs only, no data modification, human approval gates)? Or does the idea of any autonomous system touching prod feel like a non-starter regardless of safety design?

View all

I've been building in the autonomous pentesting space, and this question keeps coming up in conversations with security folks, so I'm curious what this community actually thinks.

Now that AI agents can chain findings and execute proof-of-concept exploits autonomously, the obvious next question is: would you actually let one run against your live environment?