To effectively handle security vulnerabilities, it is crucial to have a thorough understanding of your adversaries. This is why businesses rely on a specific set of metrics for vulnerability management. These metrics serve the purpose of quantifying their resilience and providing valuable insights to guide decision-making.
The underlying rationale is simple: the more information you have about existing vulnerabilities and the effectiveness of your responses, the better equipped you will be to minimize risks and safeguard your business’s financial stability.
However, as we delve deeper into this topic, we will discover that solely relying on quantitative data may not be the most effective approach to achieving these objectives.
Nonetheless, let us first discuss the key metrics that hold the utmost importance in vulnerability management.
What Are The Most Common Vulnerability Management Metrics?
In reality, only a handful of businesses will have the capacity and resources to address every vulnerability promptly. The sheer number of vulnerabilities, coupled with the constant emergence of new ones, makes it impractical. As a result, businesses must engage in a delicate juggling act, allocating resources strategically to areas of greatest need.
To achieve this, organizations frequently track various metrics related to vulnerability management. Here are ten of the most prevalent metrics:
What Are The Most Common Vulnerability Management Metrics?
MTTD refers to the average duration it takes to identify vulnerabilities or security weaknesses from their initial occurrence. Similar to MTTR, this metric aims to measure your ability to promptly respond to emerging threats.
The average duration it takes to address and mitigate cybersecurity vulnerabilities, starting from their identification to successful resolution, is measured by MTTR. This metric provides insight into the responsiveness of your security setup.
Scan coverage evaluates the degree to which a system or network has undergone scrutiny for potential vulnerabilities. This aids organizations in comprehending the extent of their data’s thoroughness. Scan coverage can be measured as the percentage of assets within the company that are actively being monitored for vulnerabilities.
The patching rate refers to the number of patches that are implemented during a certain timeframe. This metric is used to gauge the overall resilience, but it does not take into consideration the duration of specific vulnerabilities in the system or the time it took to detect them.
The main emphasis is on the quantity of unresolved vulnerabilities with a high level of risk. This provides a more in-depth understanding of the existing threat environment and the backlog of vulnerabilities your system faces. This measurement is frequently favoured because it focuses specifically on vulnerabilities with elevated risk levels.
Dissecting The Metrics Mirage
At first glance, it may appear that the key to a successful vulnerability management program lies in monitoring and minimizing the relevant metrics. However, to truly grasp the effectiveness of your risk management strategy, it is crucial to take a moment to reflect on the ultimate objective.
In essence, the aim is to identify risks in order to allocate resources effectively for mitigation. Yet, there are numerous approaches to defining such risks:
Some assets hold more importance than others. If a customer-facing application or a system containing sensitive financial data is attacked, the consequences would be much more severe compared to an attack on non-essential systems.
A vulnerability that affects various components within your IT infrastructure poses a greater risk compared to one that only impacts a limited portion of it.
The higher the level of familiarity and accessibility of a vulnerability, the greater the chances of it being exploited by hackers. Consequently, vulnerabilities that are widely known and easily accessible present a more pressing and substantial danger.
To establish effective vulnerability management programs, it is crucial to allocate resources in a strategic manner, taking into consideration the perceived level of risk.
Basing your entire vulnerability management program solely on quantifiable data poses a significant challenge. The problem lies in the fact that most commonly used metrics prioritize scale and fail to consider the risk associated with a specific vulnerability. In other words, even the most efficient and responsive security teams in the world can become ineffective if they are not directing their efforts towards the vulnerabilities that pose the highest risk.
This is where the concept of the “metrics mirage” comes into play. Vulnerability management metrics serve as tools to help you understand your risk profile and determine the most appropriate course of action. However, many businesses mistakenly view these metrics as the ultimate goal rather than a means to an end. If the metrics being measured only have a loose connection to actual risk, it is highly likely that you are leading yourself astray.
Some businesses attempt to address this issue by incorporating risk metrics such as the CVSS score or the number of open critical vulnerabilities. While this is a step in the right direction for allocating resources towards higher-risk vulnerabilities, it is important to note that it is not a foolproof solution.
Using CVSS data alone will not provide a comprehensive understanding of the risks your business faces. It fails to consider the unique context of your industry, specific IT setup, and overall business environment. The impact of the same attack can vary significantly between two businesses based on factors such as their system infrastructure, industry sector, and architectural design.
Out of the three risk variables we previously discussed, criticality and scope can differ greatly from one organization to another. Consequently, relying solely on quantifiable metrics is not sufficient as they do not account for the specific nuances of your company. This limitation hinders their effectiveness in demonstrating the success of your remediation efforts and identifying areas where resources should be directed for improvement.
So how can you escape the illusion created by relying solely on metrics and obtain a more balanced assessment of your risk profile?
How to Overcome the Metrics Mirage: The Balanced Scorecard Approach
What does an effective vulnerability management program truly entail? In essence, it necessitates a meticulous combination of quantitative and qualitative perspectives:
The Significance of Qualitative Perspectives
The quantitative measurements mentioned earlier can provide insights into the number of vulnerabilities present, the critical weaknesses, and your responsiveness in addressing them.
However, a qualitative, subjective evaluation is the sole means of comprehending the potential harm that these vulnerabilities could inflict upon your particular IT environment. If executed properly, this evaluation should offer a more profound comprehension of the context and intricacies pertinent to your business and infrastructure setup.
The Balanced Scorecard: A Powerful Approach to Managing Vulnerabilities
In order to effectively address both quantitative and qualitative aspects, security teams frequently rely on the balanced scorecard methodology. This approach is built upon a widely utilized framework that was initially developed by David Norton and Robert Kaplan in 1992. While it is not inherently tailored to cybersecurity, it is often adapted to suit this particular context.
The objective of the balanced scorecard is to assess and enhance the efficacy of a company’s security measures and initiatives by taking into account a comprehensive evaluation of the risks and consequences associated with vulnerabilities. This evaluation is conducted from four distinct perspectives:
The financial aspect centers around the economic implications of cybersecurity activities. It takes into account the expenses associated with implementing security measures, the return on investment (ROI), and the potential financial losses caused by security breaches. Pertinent metrics in this regard could encompass the average age of vulnerabilities, scan coverage, and the number of critical vulnerabilities that remain unresolved.
The customer perspective evaluates cybersecurity from the standpoint of the organization’s customers and stakeholders. It involves assessing how effectively security measures meet customer expectations and the potential harm to the organization’s reputation in the event of a breach.
The internal business perspective focuses on the internal processes and operations of cybersecurity within the organization, measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of response. Relevant metrics in this regard may include Mean Time to Detect (MTTD), Mean Time to Respond (MTTR), as well as the overall effectiveness of the incident response plan when vulnerabilities are identified.
The fourth perspective, known as the learning and growth perspective, centers around the improvement and expansion of skills and knowledge within security teams. It involves evaluating the effectiveness of training and development initiatives aimed at enhancing the capabilities of security professionals and their capacity to respond to emerging vulnerabilities and threats.
By taking into account the practical circumstances surrounding your business, IT infrastructure, customers, and internal security team, you can begin to form a more focused understanding of your cybersecurity priorities. Subsequently, you will be able to make more well-informed choices in order to oversee your risk level and enhance your security measures.
Naturally, this approach is not the sole method for managing risk and devising a cybersecurity strategy. However, it has proven to be an effective technique employed by numerous businesses over the course of time.
Shifting Away From the Illusion of Metrics
When it comes to managing risk and devising a cybersecurity strategy, there are various approaches to consider. While no single method is universally applicable, the balanced scorecard has proven to be an effective approach for many businesses over the years.
However, it is important to acknowledge that there is no one-size-fits-all formula for determining the level of risk posed by specific vulnerabilities to your organization, IT system, and customers. This is precisely why methodologies like the balanced scorecard are crucial when developing and evaluating your overall security program.
Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that an effective vulnerability management policy should not be approached with an all-or-nothing mindset. Keeping track of the metrics we discussed earlier in this blog remains important as they can inform decision-making through approaches such as the balanced scorecard. The key is to perceive these metrics as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. They should serve as valuable insights to guide your objectives rather than becoming the objectives themselves.
By adopting a more comprehensive perspective on your cybersecurity challenges, you can make well-informed and targeted decisions that ultimately enhance your overall security posture.
