After greater than 25 years of mitigating dangers, guaranteeing compliance, and constructing sturdy safety packages for Fortune 500 corporations, I’ve discovered that wanting 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 scale back danger. So, we resort to numerous methods of reporting on what number of patches had been utilized beneath the standard 30/60/90-day patching technique.
I name these vainness metrics: numbers that look spectacular in experiences 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 that means can depart organizations uncovered.
On this article, I will clarify why vainness metrics are usually not sufficient to guard right now’s advanced 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 show exercise – however they do not normally replicate precise danger discount. They sometimes fall into three fundamental varieties:
- Quantity metrics – These depend issues: patches utilized, vulnerabilities found, scans accomplished. They create a way of productiveness however do not converse to enterprise impression or danger relevance.
- Time-based metrics with out danger 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, velocity 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 that means. And if they are not tied to risk relevance or business-critical belongings, they will quietly undermine your whole safety technique.
Vainness Metrics: Extra Hurt than Good
When vainness metrics dominate safety reporting, they could do extra hurt than good. I’ve seen organizations burn by means of time and finances chasing numbers that appeared nice in govt briefings – whereas crucial exposures had been left untouched.
What goes mistaken if you depend on vainness metrics?
- Misallocated effort – Groups concentrate on what’s straightforward to repair or what strikes a metric, not what really reduces danger. This creates a harmful hole between what’s executed and what must be executed.
- 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 will be expensive.
- 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 stuffed with glowing KPIs. The explanation? These KPIs weren’t tied to actuality. A metric that does not replicate precise enterprise danger is not simply meaningless – it is harmful.
Transferring to Significant Metrics
If vainness metrics inform us what’s been executed, significant metrics inform us what issues. They shift the main target from exercise to impression – giving safety groups and enterprise leaders a shared understanding of precise danger.
A significant metric begins with a transparent method: danger = probability × impression. It would not simply ask “What vulnerabilities exist?” – it asks “Which of those will be exploited to succeed in our most crucial belongings, and what would the results be?” To make the shift to significant metrics, contemplate anchoring your reporting round 5 key metrics:
- Threat rating (tied to enterprise impression) – A significant danger rating weighs exploitability, asset criticality, and potential impression. It ought to evolve dynamically as exposures change or as risk 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.
- Vital asset publicity (tracked over time) – Not all belongings are equal. You must know which of your business-critical techniques are presently uncovered – and the way that publicity is trending. Are you lowering danger 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 appropriate gaps.
- Assault path mapping – Vulnerabilities do not exist in isolation. Attackers chain collectively exposures – misconfigurations, overprivileged identities, unpatched CVEs – to succeed in high-value targets. Mapping these paths reveals you ways an attacker may really transfer by means of your atmosphere. It helps prioritize not simply particular person points, however how they work collectively to type a risk.
- Publicity class breakdown – You must perceive what forms 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 danger 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 robust issues. What issues is how briskly you are closing the exposures that truly 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 repeatedly up to date, significant metrics offer you greater than a snapshot – they supply a residing, contextual view of your risk publicity. They elevate safety reporting from job monitoring to strategic perception. And most significantly, they offer each safety groups and enterprise leaders a typical language for making risk-informed choices.
The Backside Line
Vainness metrics supply consolation. They fill dashboards, impress in boardrooms, and counsel progress. However in the actual world – the place risk 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. Meaning embracing metrics grounded in enterprise danger. And that is the place frameworks like Steady Menace 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 tasks that by 2026, organizations implementing CTEM may scale back breaches by two-thirds.
The metrics you select form the conversations you’ve got – and those you miss. Vainness metrics maintain everybody comfy. Significant metrics pressure more durable questions, however they get you nearer to the reality. As a result of you possibly can’t scale back danger in case you’re not measuring it correctly.
Word: This text is expertly written by Jason Fruge, CISO in Residence at XM Cyber.
