Glasswall

Security tools that can't adapt to your environment tend to create one of two outcomes: teams work around them, or they get replaced. A file handling policy that's appropriate for a classified government network is far too restrictive for a financial services firm processing thousands of customer documents a day. A configuration built for a cloud-native SaaS platform doesn't translate cleanly to an air-gapped operational network. When a tool forces a choice between the protection it can offer and the operational reality of your environment, that tension doesn't go away — it just gets resolved informally, usually in favor of keeping workflows moving. The problem with one-size-fits-all security isn't that it's wrong for every organization. It's that it's precise for none of them. And the gaps it creates are often invisible until something goes wrong. Glasswall CDR is built around granular policy management. Security teams configure exactly how file components are handled during the CDR process — what gets removed, what gets repaired, what the acceptable output looks like for that specific environment. Those policies can be set to match compliance requirements, operational constraints and risk tolerance without overhauling what's already in place. That level of control is particularly important in high-assurance environments where compliance mandates are specific and documented. But it matters in any environment where the right level of protection differs by workflow, by user group or by the sensitivity of the data involved. Protection that fits your environment is protection that actually gets used.

Security tools that slow workflows down get turned off or worked around. At 812ms average processing time, Glasswall CDR doesn't give users a reason to bypass it.

Some tools earn trust. Glasswall CDR is mandated by the U.S. NSA NCDSMO for Cross Domain Solutions. In the highest-assurance environments, trust alone isn't enough.

Detection-based security has a structural problem: it only works against threats it already knows about. Signature matching, behavioral analysis, sandboxing — each of those approaches starts from the same assumption. Show the tool a file, wait for it to recognize something suspicious, then act. That model worked when the threat landscape was slow-moving and well-documented. It's far less effective against zero-day exploits, where there's no prior signature to match and no behavioral history to flag. In the time between a malicious file arriving and a threat being identified, your environment is exposed. How long that window stays open depends on your detection tools, your team's response speed and whether the threat is sophisticated enough to avoid triggering any alerts at all. For some organizations, the answer to "how long were we exposed before we knew?" is measured in weeks. Content Disarm and Reconstruction (CDR) changes the question. Instead of scanning for known threats, Glasswall rebuilds every file to a known-good standard — inspect, repair, clean, deliver. Malicious active content isn't flagged and quarantined. It's removed, regardless of whether it matches a known signature. Zero-day threats are neutralized by default because CDR removes the conditions that allow threats to execute, not just the threats themselves. That's not a theoretical claim. Glasswall has tested it against 8.27 million malicious files under objective conditions. 100% were neutralized. Not a high success rate. Not "effective against the most common threat vectors." 100%. If your current security model depends on knowing what a threat looks like before stopping it, see what a prevention-first approach actually produces.

You can't detect what you don't know exists. Glasswall rebuilds every file to a known-good standard, so zero-day threats are neutralized by default.

Security tools that don't connect to your existing stack create new gaps to manage. With 300+ native connections, Glasswall CDR extends protection across the infrastructure you already have.