Attackers already know how they would come after you. Most organizations do not.
You have audits, monitoring, incident docs in a shared folder. It looks reasonable on paper. Then a real exploit starts, blocks keep producing, assets keep moving, and whatever shows on a block explorer becomes the record everyone reads.
A “simulate your worst attack” session is a way to run that day in advance and see what actually happens in your first thirty minutes.
What “simulate your worst attack” means
You pick one or two attack paths that would actually hurt:
- A vault or market exploit
- A governance or multisig takeover
- A bridge or messaging failure that risks funds
- A key compromise on a critical wallet
- An infra incident that hits core services while markets are live
Inside MDR, we simulate your worst attack and walk the path with your real stack. You see which alerts fire and where, who would realistically notice, how the conversation wakes up in your channels, when pausing is suggested, how fast that suggestion reaches signers and governance, and what your logs can prove afterward. In parallel, the same sequence runs with MDR workflows overlaid: identity bound to access and approvals, playbooks visible in the incident view, clear pause rules and vote thresholds, acknowledgements from Slack or Teams with traceability, and audit logs plus onchain context captured as you go.
Who this is for
You need this once an incident would move something that matters beyond your own balance sheet, for example:
- DeFi protocols with user deposits, treasuries, or leverage
- L1 or L2 foundations and core teams
- Custodians, exchanges, brokers, wallet providers
- RWA, stablecoin, and structured product platforms
- Any project with audits and monitoring but no clear owner for the first thirty minutes
If a live exploit would move user confidence, partner trust, or regulatory attention, running the attack in a controlled room is cheaper than testing your process on chain.
What you get out of it
A useful simulation gives you more than a scare story.
You come away with:
- A shared timeline of the attack and your response
- A simple view of readiness across identity, detection, pausing, communication, and evidence
- A concrete list of gaps instead of vague “improve security” tasks
Typical gaps are missing or stale playbooks, unclear authority to pause, alerts that depend on single individuals, brittle integrations, and weak audit logs.
You also see, in the same scenario, where MDR changes the outcome. It moves the discussion from “MDR sounds nice” to “this is where identity, playbooks, pausing, Slack and Teams acks, and audit trails would have changed our last thirty minutes.”
You can use this output with leadership, governance, and risk to justify specific changes.
Why do this before an attacker does
Without a rehearsal, you are relying on a chain of untested assumptions.
You assume someone will see the first signal.
You assume the right people will be reachable and aligned.
You assume playbooks will be opened and followed.
You assume logs will be enough for questions later.
Most organizations never decide these assumptions are acceptable. They just live with them until they are tested in public.
Simulation replaces that blind spot with something explicit. It shows where signals are late or noisy, where decisions have no clear owner, where emergency controls are not wired to governance, and where collaboration tools carry the conversation but not the action.
You discover those fractures in a room with your own team, not in a live exploit thread.
Where MDR fits
The simulation is a mirror of your current state. MDR is what changes that picture.
In the attack paths we simulate, Cantina MDR:
- Connects detection to your identity perimeter so the right people can act
- Embeds playbooks in the incident view instead of buried documents
- Makes pausing and emergency actions explicit, with thresholds and votes defined in advance
- Lets incidents be acknowledged and driven from Slack or Microsoft Teams with a full record in one place
- Captures audit trails, onchain context, and AI assisted analysis as part of the response
You see your worst attack without that structure. You see it again with it in place. That contrast is the real value.
If the worst attack you can imagine started tonight, do you know who would see it first, who would decide what to do, and how that decision would be executed. If you cannot answer that cleanly, you are the exact profile that benefits from running the attack in simulation and seeing how MDR would change your first thirty minutes.
Book a session here.