After greater than 25 years of mitigating dangers, making certain compliance, and constructing strong safety packages for Fortune 500 firms, I’ve discovered that trying busy is not the identical as being safe.
It is a simple entice for busy cybersecurity leaders to fall into. We depend on metrics that inform a narrative of the great efforts we’re expending – what number of vulnerabilities we patched, how briskly we responded – however typically vulnerability administration metrics get related to operational metrics as a result of conventional approaches to measuring and implementing vulnerability administration doesn’t really cut back threat. So, we resort to varied methods of reporting on what number of patches had been utilized below the normal 30/60/90-day patching methodology.
I name these self-importance metrics: numbers that look spectacular in stories however lack real-world impression. They provide reassurance, however not insights. In the meantime, threats proceed to develop extra subtle, and attackers exploit the blind spots we’re not measuring. I’ve seen firsthand how this disconnect between measurement and which means can depart organizations uncovered.
On this article, I am going to clarify why self-importance metrics will not be sufficient to guard at present’s complicated environments and why it is time to cease measuring exercise and begin measuring effectiveness.
Drill Down: What Are Vainness Metrics?
Vainness metrics are numbers that look good in a report however supply little strategic worth. They’re straightforward to trace, easy to current, and are sometimes used to exhibit exercise – however they do not normally replicate precise threat discount. They sometimes fall into three major sorts:
- Quantity metrics – These rely issues: patches utilized, vulnerabilities found, scans accomplished. They create a way of productiveness however do not converse to enterprise impression or threat relevance.
- Time-based metrics with out threat context – Metrics like Imply Time to Detect (MTTD) or Imply Time to Remediate (MTTR) can sound spectacular. However with out prioritization based mostly on criticality, pace is simply the “how,” not the “what.”
- Protection metrics – Percentages like “95% of belongings scanned” or “90% of vulnerabilities patched” give an phantasm of management. However they ignore the query of which 5% had been missed – and whether or not they’re those that matter most.
Vainness metrics aren’t inherently mistaken – however they’re dangerously incomplete. They monitor movement, not which means. And if they are not tied to menace relevance or business-critical belongings, they’ll quietly undermine your total safety technique.
Vainness Metrics: Extra Hurt than Good
When self-importance metrics dominate safety reporting, they could do extra hurt than good. I’ve seen organizations burn by means of time and funds chasing numbers that appeared nice in government briefings – whereas crucial exposures had been left untouched.
What goes mistaken if you depend on self-importance metrics?
- Misallocated effort – Groups deal with what’s straightforward to repair or what strikes a metric, not what actually reduces threat. This creates a harmful hole between what’s finished and what must be finished.
- False confidence – Upward-trending charts can mislead management into believing the group is safe. With out context – exploitability, assault paths – that perception is fragile and could be pricey.
- Damaged prioritization – Large vulnerability lists with out context trigger fatigue. Excessive-risk points can simply get misplaced within the noise, and remediation can get delayed the place it issues most.
- Strategic stagnation – When reporting rewards exercise over impression, innovation slows. This system turns into reactive – at all times busy, however not at all times safer.
I’ve seen breaches happen in environments filled with glowing KPIs. The rationale? These KPIs weren’t tied to actuality. A metric that does not replicate precise enterprise threat is not simply meaningless – it is harmful.
Transferring to Significant Metrics
If self-importance metrics inform us what’s been finished, significant metrics inform us what issues. They shift the main focus from exercise to impression – giving safety groups and enterprise leaders a shared understanding of precise threat.
A significant metric begins with a transparent formulation: threat = probability × impression. It does not simply ask “What vulnerabilities exist?” – it asks “Which of those could be exploited to achieve our most crucial belongings, and what would the implications be?” To make the shift to significant metrics, contemplate anchoring your reporting round 5 key metrics:
- Danger rating (tied to enterprise impression) – A significant threat rating weighs exploitability, asset criticality, and potential impression. It ought to evolve dynamically as exposures change or as menace intelligence shifts. This rating helps management perceive safety in enterprise phrases – not what number of vulnerabilities exist, however how shut we’re to a significant breach.
- Important asset publicity (tracked over time) – Not all belongings are equal. You might want to know which of your business-critical techniques are at the moment uncovered – and the way that publicity is trending. Are you lowering threat to your most essential infrastructure, or simply spinning cycles on low-impact fixes? Monitoring this over time reveals whether or not your safety program is definitely closing the precise gaps.
- Assault path mapping – Vulnerabilities do not exist in isolation. Attackers chain collectively exposures – misconfigurations, overprivileged identities, unpatched CVEs – to achieve high-value targets. Mapping these paths reveals you ways an attacker may really transfer by means of your setting. It helps prioritize not simply particular person points, however how they work collectively to type a menace.
- Publicity class breakdown – You might want to perceive what varieties of exposures are most prevalent – and most harmful. Whether or not it is credential misuse, lacking patches, open ports, or cloud misconfigurations, this breakdown informs each tactical response and strategic planning. If 60% of your threat stems from identity-based exposures, for instance, that ought to form your funding choices.
- Imply Time to Remediate (MTTR) for crucial exposures – Common MTTR is a flawed metric. It will get dragged down by straightforward fixes and ignores the powerful issues. What issues is how briskly you are closing the exposures that really put you in danger. MTTR for crucial exposures – these tied to exploitable assault paths or crown-jewel belongings – is what actually defines operational effectiveness.
Taken collectively and constantly up to date, significant metrics provide you with greater than a snapshot – they supply a residing, contextual view of your menace publicity. They elevate safety reporting from job monitoring to strategic perception. And most significantly, they offer each safety groups and enterprise leaders a standard language for making risk-informed choices.
The Backside Line
Vainness metrics supply consolation. They fill dashboards, impress in boardrooms, and recommend progress. However in the actual world – the place menace actors do not care what number of patches you utilized final month – they provide little safety.
Actual safety calls for a shift from monitoring what’s straightforward to measure to specializing in what really issues. Which means embracing metrics grounded in enterprise threat. And that is the place frameworks like Steady Risk Publicity Administration (CTEM) come into play. CTEM provides organizations the construction to maneuver from static vulnerability lists to dynamic, prioritized motion. And the outcomes are compelling – Gartner initiatives that by 2026, organizations implementing CTEM may cut back breaches by two-thirds.
The metrics you select form the conversations you may have – and those you miss. Vainness metrics maintain everybody comfy. Significant metrics power more durable questions, however they get you nearer to the reality. As a result of you’ll be able to’t cut back threat should you’re not measuring it correctly.
Word: This text is expertly written by Jason Fruge, CISO in Residence at XM Cyber.
