Back to Press Releases

STIGViewer Unveils Semantic Compliance: Closing the Audit Defensibility Gap

A new approach to STIG compliance that replaces manual keyword searching with atomic requirement decomposition and O*NET role mapping.

January 21, 2026 – MoxyWolf LLC today announced the launch of a groundbreaking "Semantic Enrichment Layer" for STIGViewer, designed to solve the critical "Compliance Defensibility Gap" facing government and defense organizations. This new capability transforms how Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) are consumed, replacing ambiguous natural language requirements with atomically decomposed, machine-readable mandates.

For decades, compliance practitioners—Network Administrators, GRC Analysts, and System Engineers—have struggled with the "Discovery and Scoping Problem." With over 400+ STIGs in existence, identifying relevant controls resembles manual archaeology, forcing staff to rely on keyword searches and tribal knowledge. This antiquated approach leads to "audit indefensibility," where organizations cannot prove why a specific role is responsible for a requirement or justify their workforce allocation to auditors.

"The industry doesn't need another GRC tool; it needs better data," said the MoxyWolf Product Team. "We realized that the fundamental problem wasn't the software—it was that requirements were treated as indivisible blocks of text. By decomposing these requirements and mapping them to O*NET occupational roles, we're turning compliance discovery from a three-hour manual slog into a thirty-second query."

key Capabilities of Semantic Compliance:

  • Atomic Decomposition: Breaks down verbose STIG requirements into independently testable mandates, distinguishing between simple configuration checks and complex security architecture decisions.
  • O*NET Role Mapping: Automatically maps technical controls to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes, ensuring that "Network Administrators" (15-1244.00) see network controls and "Database Administrators" (15-1242.00) see database controls.
  • Complexity Forecasting: Uses Shannon entropy scores to quantify the cognitive variability of each task, allowing CISOs to distinguish between tasks that can be automated (low entropy) and those requiring senior expertise (high entropy).
  • Bidirectional Discovery: Enables users to query by role ("What do I need to do?") or by asset ("What controls apply to this Cisco switch?").

Addressing the Complexity Forecasting Gap

One of the most persistent challenges for CISOs is the inability to predict the true cost of compliance. Without understanding the cognitive complexity of individual requirements, training budgets are spread thinly across all controls rather than targeted at high-difficulty areas.

"When a CISO asks, 'If we implement the iOS STIG, do we need senior architects or junior technicians?', current tools go silent," the announcement continues. "Our new complexity analysis provides a mathematical confidence score, revealing that while 85% of mandates may be simple configuration tasks, the remaining 15% require deep architectural expertise. This data is critical for justifiable workforce allocation."

Zero Switching Costs

Unlike traditional GRC platforms that require expensive migrations, STIGViewer's Semantic Compliance models are designed as an enrichment layer. The data is delivered via standard REST APIs and JSON-LD, allowing it to be consumed by existing GRC tools, SIEMs, and automation platforms like Ansible.

"We ask no one to switch anything," the team emphasized. "We ask them to consume structured compliance intelligence that makes whatever they already use defensibly smarter."

The new Semantic Compliance features will be available shortly. What is immediately within STIGViewer is API and MCP access to standard STIGs. Organizations signing up for API/MCP access between now and TBD Date will receive the enhanced STIGs at the same price.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the "Compliance Defensibility Gap"?

The Compliance Defensibility Gap refers to the inability of organizations to prove why a specific compliance methodology was chosen. It arises when verbose natural language requirements are treated as indivisible units. This leads to identifying requirements by vague keywords rather than specific, independent mandates. Without "atomic" chains of evidence, organizations cannot defend against auditor questions like "which specific requirement failed?" or "why was this role assigned to this task?", resulting in audit indefensibility.

How does this solve the "Discovery and Scoping Problem"?

Traditional discovery relies on manual "archaeology"—searching through 400+ STIGs using keywords or relying on staff memory (tribal knowledge). This leads to missed STIGs (incomplete coverage) or including irrelevant ones (scope creep). Semantic Compliance introduces Bidirectional Discovery:

  1. By Role: "Show me all STIGs applicable to Network Administrators (15-1244.00)."
  2. By Asset: "Show me controls for Cisco network devices."

This turns a manual research project into a precise query using RDF semantic graphs.

What is "Complexity Forecasting" and why does it matter?

Complexity Forecasting answers the question: "How hard will this be to implement?" Current planning is often based on "gut feel," treating all requirements as equal effort. Semantic Compliance uses Shannon entropy scores and Bloom's Taxonomy to classify tasks:

  • Low Entropy / Level 1-2: Simple configuration tasks (automatable, junior staff).
  • High Entropy / Level 5-6: Abstract security architecture decisions (requires senior expertise).

This data allows CISOs to allocate training budgets effectively and defend hiring decisions based on actual cognitive load rather than guesswork.

Do I need to replace my current GRC tool?

No. The Semantic Enrichment Layer is not a new "tool" you have to migrate to. It is a data layer. We provide the enriched, decomposed, and mapped data via standard protocols (REST APIs, JSON-LD) that can be consumed by your existing ecosystem—whether that's ServiceNow, Archer, a custom SIEM, or Ansible scripts. The goal is to make your existing toolchain "defensibly smarter," not to replace it.

What is the difference between "Atomic Decomposition" and standard parsing?

Standard parsing imports the entire text of a STIG requirement (e.g., "V-2938"). Atomic Decomposition breaks that text into its constituent, independently testable mandates. For example, a single STIG ID might contain requirements for both "encryption at rest" AND "access control." We treat these as separate Semantic Atoms. This allows for pass/fail granular tracking that standard parsing cannot support.