Blog
Product

Metrics matter: why we've added analytics to show your progress

James Harrison
Author
James Harrison
Senior Content Writer

Key Points

The key to moving to a more effective and robust cybersecurity program is understanding how your progress has improved over time. But deciding how to measure your performance and what to report isn’t always easy – or available. Especially with an ever-expanding attack surface.  

Even though this can be hard, security leaders are under pressure to demonstrate their value and the ROI of security products beyond just reducing risk. They also need to demonstrate how their security plans align with the goals of their organization – which the right metrics can help achieve.

At Intruder, we understand this better than anyone. Our reporting has always focused on the results of your scans and the current state of your attack surface. And while this was ideal for prioritizing immediate work, it made it harder to see your progress over time.

In today’s ever changing cyber security landscape, you need more granular and more relevant metrics. You need to know and show how long it’s taking your team to fix. So, we’ve introduced a much more informative, intuitive and useful analytics page that shows your progress over time.  

What’s in it for you?

  • See how you’re fixing vulnerabilities over time compared to previous periods
  • Demonstrate to auditors and customers that you're scanning for new threats
  • Quantify the number of threats and time to fix to the board and management
  • Track you team’s progress and performance so you can allocate resource

So, what’s new?

Unlike your dashboard which is a static snapshot of your security posture now, the new analytics tab tracks your exposure over time and shows how well your team have performed in any given date range. You can now compare different time periods – for example you can choose to look at the last 30 days compared to the previous 30 days.  

The new analytics page shows these metrics organized into three sections - Issues, Monitor Progress and Attack Surface:

  • New issues
  • Open issues
  • Fixed issues
  • Average time to fix
  • Emerging threat scans
  • Scan frequency
  • Cyber hygiene score
  • Most vulnerable targets
  • New services
  • Scanned targets

Let’s dive in to each and see how you can use these new analytics to accurately measure success and the progress of your vulnerability management efforts...

1. Issues

This is the point from a vulnerability going public, to having scanned all targets and detecting any issues. Essentially, how quickly are vulnerabilities being detected across your attack surface, so you can fix them and reduce the window of opportunity for an attacker.

What does this mean in practice? If your attack surface is increasing, you may find that it takes you longer to scan everything comprehensively, and your mean time to detect may increase as well. Conversely, if your mean time to detect stays flat or goes down, you're using your resources effectively. If you start to see the opposite, you should ask yourself why it’s taking longer to detect things? And if the answer is the attack surface has ballooned, maybe you need to invest more in your tooling and security team.  

Widgets explained

  • Open issues: the number of issues that were open on the last day of the selected time period so you can spot trends. For example: if you have more open issues this quarter than the last, your team might be under-resourced; if you have fewer this month than you did last month, whatever you have in place appears to be working well.
  • New issues: the total number of issues that were detected during the time period specified and not present in the previous period. Again, this is to help you spot trends. If the number increases, it might be worth exploring whether your attack surface has expanded (perhaps unintentionally) or whether there is a shortfall in your patch management program.
  • Fixed issues: the total number of remediated active issues, either newly found or existing, so you can monitor your performance when it comes to remediation and make sure you're prioritizing based on severity.
  • Days to fix: the average number of days between an occurrence being detected to it being fixed – grouped by severity. Similar to above, it’s designed to help you track performance and understand if you're prioritizing the right vulnerabilities.

Explore the new analytics in our interactive demo below.

 

2. Monitor progress

Prioritization – or intelligent results – is important to help you decide what to fix first, because of its potential impact on your business. We filter out the noise and help reduce false positives, which is a key metric to track because once you reduce the amount of noise you can circle back and focus on the most important metric – the average time to fix.

Why is this important? Because when you do find an issue, you want to be able to fix it as quickly as possible. Intruder interprets the output from a number of industry-leading vulnerability scanners and prioritizes the results according to context, so you can save time and focus on what really matters.

Widgets explained

  • Emerging threats: the number of emerging threat checks which have been run on your attack surface, a breakdown of the severity of the scans, and whether they passed/failed so you can see whether you’re consistently failing ETS checks, to help you see your performance and whether it's improving or worsening.
  • Days between scans: the total number of assessments run and the average (mean) interval between them to help you see how often you're scanning your attack surface (the more frequent the better!).
  • Cyber hygiene score: a high-touch snapshot of your commitment to protecting your attack surface over time.

3. Attack surface

In this section, you can see the percentage of assets that are protected across your attack surface, discovered or undiscovered. As you team spins up new apps, our vulnerability scanner and CloudBot check when a new service is exposed, so you can prevent data from becoming inadvertently exposed. CloudBot monitors your cloud systems for changes, finding new assets, and synchronizing your IPs or hostnames with your integrations.

Why is this important? Your attack surface will inevitably evolve over time, from open ports to spinning up new cloud instances, you need to monitor these changes to minimize your exposure. That's where our attack surface discovery comes in.

Widgets explained

  • Most vulnerable targets: the targets with the most un-remediated occurrences at the end of the selected time period, this helps you understand which target(s) need immediate attention, so you can prioritize resource.
  • New services: the number of new services discovered during the time period specified to help you understand if your attack surface is growing (whether intentionally or not).
  • Scanned targets: the total number of targets that were scanned during a set period, be it one-off scans; scheduled scans; remediations scans or Emerging Threat Scans so you can see how much of your attack surface is being actively scanned by Intruder.

The success analytics tab feature is available to all users with a Pro, Premium or Vanguard plan. When you visit the analytics page for the first time, you'll see a survey to gather your feedback on this new feature. Please take a minute to tell us what you think. We look forward to hearing your feedback!

Get our free

Ultimate Guide to Vulnerability Scanning

Learn everything you need to get started with vulnerability scanning and how to get the most out of your chosen product with our free PDF guide.

Sign up for your free 14-day trial

7 days free trial
See your progress over time with a suite of new analytics in your Intruder dashboard.
back to BLOG

Metrics matter: why we've added analytics to show your progress

James Harrison

The key to moving to a more effective and robust cybersecurity program is understanding how your progress has improved over time. But deciding how to measure your performance and what to report isn’t always easy – or available. Especially with an ever-expanding attack surface.  

Even though this can be hard, security leaders are under pressure to demonstrate their value and the ROI of security products beyond just reducing risk. They also need to demonstrate how their security plans align with the goals of their organization – which the right metrics can help achieve.

At Intruder, we understand this better than anyone. Our reporting has always focused on the results of your scans and the current state of your attack surface. And while this was ideal for prioritizing immediate work, it made it harder to see your progress over time.

In today’s ever changing cyber security landscape, you need more granular and more relevant metrics. You need to know and show how long it’s taking your team to fix. So, we’ve introduced a much more informative, intuitive and useful analytics page that shows your progress over time.  

What’s in it for you?

  • See how you’re fixing vulnerabilities over time compared to previous periods
  • Demonstrate to auditors and customers that you're scanning for new threats
  • Quantify the number of threats and time to fix to the board and management
  • Track you team’s progress and performance so you can allocate resource

So, what’s new?

Unlike your dashboard which is a static snapshot of your security posture now, the new analytics tab tracks your exposure over time and shows how well your team have performed in any given date range. You can now compare different time periods – for example you can choose to look at the last 30 days compared to the previous 30 days.  

The new analytics page shows these metrics organized into three sections - Issues, Monitor Progress and Attack Surface:

  • New issues
  • Open issues
  • Fixed issues
  • Average time to fix
  • Emerging threat scans
  • Scan frequency
  • Cyber hygiene score
  • Most vulnerable targets
  • New services
  • Scanned targets

Let’s dive in to each and see how you can use these new analytics to accurately measure success and the progress of your vulnerability management efforts...

1. Issues

This is the point from a vulnerability going public, to having scanned all targets and detecting any issues. Essentially, how quickly are vulnerabilities being detected across your attack surface, so you can fix them and reduce the window of opportunity for an attacker.

What does this mean in practice? If your attack surface is increasing, you may find that it takes you longer to scan everything comprehensively, and your mean time to detect may increase as well. Conversely, if your mean time to detect stays flat or goes down, you're using your resources effectively. If you start to see the opposite, you should ask yourself why it’s taking longer to detect things? And if the answer is the attack surface has ballooned, maybe you need to invest more in your tooling and security team.  

Widgets explained

  • Open issues: the number of issues that were open on the last day of the selected time period so you can spot trends. For example: if you have more open issues this quarter than the last, your team might be under-resourced; if you have fewer this month than you did last month, whatever you have in place appears to be working well.
  • New issues: the total number of issues that were detected during the time period specified and not present in the previous period. Again, this is to help you spot trends. If the number increases, it might be worth exploring whether your attack surface has expanded (perhaps unintentionally) or whether there is a shortfall in your patch management program.
  • Fixed issues: the total number of remediated active issues, either newly found or existing, so you can monitor your performance when it comes to remediation and make sure you're prioritizing based on severity.
  • Days to fix: the average number of days between an occurrence being detected to it being fixed – grouped by severity. Similar to above, it’s designed to help you track performance and understand if you're prioritizing the right vulnerabilities.

Explore the new analytics in our interactive demo below.

 

2. Monitor progress

Prioritization – or intelligent results – is important to help you decide what to fix first, because of its potential impact on your business. We filter out the noise and help reduce false positives, which is a key metric to track because once you reduce the amount of noise you can circle back and focus on the most important metric – the average time to fix.

Why is this important? Because when you do find an issue, you want to be able to fix it as quickly as possible. Intruder interprets the output from a number of industry-leading vulnerability scanners and prioritizes the results according to context, so you can save time and focus on what really matters.

Widgets explained

  • Emerging threats: the number of emerging threat checks which have been run on your attack surface, a breakdown of the severity of the scans, and whether they passed/failed so you can see whether you’re consistently failing ETS checks, to help you see your performance and whether it's improving or worsening.
  • Days between scans: the total number of assessments run and the average (mean) interval between them to help you see how often you're scanning your attack surface (the more frequent the better!).
  • Cyber hygiene score: a high-touch snapshot of your commitment to protecting your attack surface over time.

3. Attack surface

In this section, you can see the percentage of assets that are protected across your attack surface, discovered or undiscovered. As you team spins up new apps, our vulnerability scanner and CloudBot check when a new service is exposed, so you can prevent data from becoming inadvertently exposed. CloudBot monitors your cloud systems for changes, finding new assets, and synchronizing your IPs or hostnames with your integrations.

Why is this important? Your attack surface will inevitably evolve over time, from open ports to spinning up new cloud instances, you need to monitor these changes to minimize your exposure. That's where our attack surface discovery comes in.

Widgets explained

  • Most vulnerable targets: the targets with the most un-remediated occurrences at the end of the selected time period, this helps you understand which target(s) need immediate attention, so you can prioritize resource.
  • New services: the number of new services discovered during the time period specified to help you understand if your attack surface is growing (whether intentionally or not).
  • Scanned targets: the total number of targets that were scanned during a set period, be it one-off scans; scheduled scans; remediations scans or Emerging Threat Scans so you can see how much of your attack surface is being actively scanned by Intruder.

The success analytics tab feature is available to all users with a Pro, Premium or Vanguard plan. When you visit the analytics page for the first time, you'll see a survey to gather your feedback on this new feature. Please take a minute to tell us what you think. We look forward to hearing your feedback!

Release Date
Level of Ideal
Comments
Before CVE details are published
🥳
Limited public information is available about the vulnerability.

Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers, threat actors have to actively research type of vulnerability, location in vulnerable software and build an associated exploit.

Tenable release checks for 47.43% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 32.96%.
Day of CVE publish
😊
Vulnerability information is publicly accessible.

Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers and threat actors now have access to some of the information they were previously having to hunt themselves, speeding up potential exploit creation.

Tenable release checks for 17.12% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 17.69%.
First week since CVE publish
😐
Vulnerability information has been publicly available for up to 1 week.

The likelihood that exploitation in the wild is going to be happening is steadily increasing.

Tenable release checks for 10.9% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 20.69%.
Between 1 week and 1 month since CVE publish
🥺
Vulnerability information has been publicly available for up to 1 month, and some very clever people have had time to craft an exploit.

We’re starting to lose some of the benefit of rapid, automated vulnerability detection.

Tenable release checks for 9.58% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 12.43%.
After 1 month since CVE publish
😨
Information has been publicly available for more than 31 days.

Any detection released a month after the details are publicly available is decreasing in value for me.

Tenable release checks for 14.97% of the CVEs they cover over a month after the CVE details have been published, and Greenbone release 16.23%.

With this information in mind, I wanted to check what is the delay for both Tenable and Greenbone to release a detection for their scanners. The following section will focus on vulnerabilities which:

  • Have CVSSv2 rating of 10
  • Are exploitable over the network
  • Require no user interaction

These are the ones where an attacker can point their exploit code at your vulnerable system and gain unauthorised access.

We’ve seen previously that Tenable have remote checks for 643 critical vulnerabilities, and OpenVAS have remote checks for 450 critical vulnerabilities. Tenable release remote checks for critical vulnerabilities within 1 month of the details being made public 58.4% of the time, but Greenbone release their checks within 1 month 76.8% of the time. So, even though OpenVAS has fewer checks for those critical vulnerabilities, you are more likely to get them within 1 month of the details being made public. Let’s break that down further.

In Figure 10 we can see the absolute number of remote checks released on a given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability has been published. What you can immediately see is that both Tenable and OpenVAS release the majority of their checks on or before the CVE details are made public; Tenable have released checks for 247 CVEs, and OpenVAS have released checks for 144 CVEs. Then since 2010 Tenable have remote released checks for 147 critical CVEs and OpenVAS 79 critical CVEs on the same day as the vulnerability details were published. The number of vulnerabilities then drops off across the first week and drops further after 1 week, as we would hope for in an efficient time-to-release scenario.

Figure 10: Absolute numbers of critical CVEs with a remote check release date from the date a CVE is published

While raw numbers are good, Tenable have a larger number of checks available so it could be unfair to go on raw numbers alone. It’s potentially more important to understand the likelihood that OpenVAS or Tenable will release a check of a vulnerability on any given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability is released. In Figure 11 we can see that Tenable release 61% their checks on or before the date that a CVE is published, and OpenVAS release a shade under 50% of their checks on or before the day that a CVE is published.

Figure 11: Percentage chance of delay for critical vulnerabilities

So, since 2010 Tenable has more frequently released their checks before or on the same day as the CVE details have been published for critical vulnerabilities. While Tenable is leading at this point, Greenbone’s community feed still gets a considerable percentage of their checks out on or before day 0.

I thought I’d go another step further and try and see if I could identify any trend in each organisations release delay, are they getting better year-on-year or are their releases getting later? In Figure 12 I’ve taken the mean delay for critical vulnerabilities per year and plotted them. The mean as a metric is particularly influenced by outliers in a data set, so I expected some wackiness and limited the mean to only checks released 180 days prior to a CVE being published and 31 days after a CVE being published. These seem to me like reasonable limits, as anything greater than 6 months prior to CVE details being released is potentially a quirk of the check details and anything after a 1-month delay is less important for us.

What can we take away from Figure 12?

  • We can see that between 2011 and 2014 Greenbone’s release delay was better than that of Tenable, by between 5 and 10 days.
  • In 2015 things reverse and for 3 years Tenable is considerably ahead of Greenbone by a matter of weeks.
  • But, then in 2019 things get much closer and Greenbone seem to be releasing on average about a day earlier than Tenable.
  • For both the trendline over an 11-year period is very close, with Tenable marginally beating Greenbone.
  • We have yet to have any data for 2021 for OpenVAS checks for critical show-stopper CVEs.
Figure 12: Release delay year-on-year (lower is better)

With the larger number of checks, and still being able to release a greater percentage of their remote checks for critical vulnerabilities Tenable could win this category. However, the delay time from 2019 and 2020 going to OpenVAS, and the trend lines being so close, I am going to declare this one a tie. It’s a tie.

The takeaway from this is that both vendors are getting their checks out the majority of the time either before the CVE details are published or on the day the details are published. This is overwhelmingly positive for both scanning solutions. Over time both also appear to be releasing remote checks for critical vulnerabilities more quickly.

Written by

James Harrison

Recommended articles

Ready to get started with your 14-day trial?
try for free