Oryon Flow vs Escape

1. 01

   Bring the target into the workflow

   Flow prepares the application from its repository; Escape whitebox still requires the target URLs.

2. 02

   Make the repair part of the investigation

   Flow keeps candidates, acceptance checks and delivery together instead of handing the source change to a connected coding tool.

3. 03

   See what the proposed change establishes

   Flow connects retained proofs with selected requirements and the projection from verified PRs.

Capabilities, side by side.

The table describes documented features; it does not measure performance or detection quality. Commercial features may depend on product, plan and configuration.

What you need	Oryon Flow	Escape
Repository investigation	✓Documented Source, packages, infrastructure and runtime connected in one investigation.	+Optional / plan dependent Optional ZIP or GitHub source context guides attacks; target URLs are still required. ↗
Reconstructed test environment	✓Documented Rebuilds the application in ephemeral, isolated environments from the original repository.	—Not documented in this scope Whitebox adds source context to a supplied running target; target reconstruction is not documented. ↗
Finding verification	✓Documented Independently reviewed proof method: confirmed, refuted or inconclusive. Missing proof remains an open question.	✓Documented A reporter reproduces each candidate on the live target before confirming it. ↗
Fixes backed by tests	✓Documented Isolated candidates; checks security and legitimate behavior before an independent review.	◇Engine integration AI remediation and MCP expose findings to coding agents that apply source changes. ↗
Reviewable pull requests	✓Documented Groups changes by cause and compatibility into reviewable PRs. Your team decides the merge.	—Not documented in this scope Connected coding tools can implement the change; native PR publishing is not established by this integration guide. ↗
Traceable technical evidence	✓Documented Links proofs and changes to technical requirements; compares current evidence with the projection from verified PRs.	✓Documented Recorded request chains, browser evidence, coverage and exportable reports. ↗
Source + runtime analysis	✓Documented Connects source, dependency, infrastructure and dynamic observations in the same investigation.	+Optional / plan dependent Source-aware whitebox testing connects code context with live exploitation. ↗
Authenticated role testing	✓Documented Checks legitimate sessions, roles and tenant boundaries; unreachable or expired sessions remain coverage gaps.	✓Documented Pentest profiles accept multiple users and authentication instructions for access-control testing. ↗
Separate validation	✓Documented The proposing agent does not approve its own conclusion or fix; a separate verification step evaluates retained evidence.	✓Documented A dedicated reporter repeats the workers’ candidates and collects its own evidence. ↗
Functional regression checks	✓Documented Compares security proofs, legitimate controls and available functional tests with the original before delivery.	—Not documented in this scope Issue replay checks security closure; legitimate functional regression tests are not specified. ↗
Dependency fixes	✓Documented Repair candidates can update the dependency graph and adapt application code, subject to validation.	—Not documented in this scope An external coding agent can edit packages; native dependency resolution and upgrade coverage is not established. ↗
Technical requirement mapping	✓Documented Links retained evidence to selected technical requirements and shows current versus proposed coverage; this is not organizational certification.	✓Documented Maps findings to frameworks including PCI-DSS, OWASP, NIST and SOC 2. ↗

Product scope