To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote, “In this world, nothing is certain except death, taxes, and software vulnerabilities.” One hundred per cent bug and vulnerabilities-free code is yet to be written. Thus, vulnerability detection and management remain a perpetual headache for vendors and users. The old method scans for vulnerabilities and offers risk ratings (sometimes out of context) by vendors. The vulnerabilities are patched based on this score. Obviously, this method has several drawbacks, starting with SOCs getting fatigued by the process. The vendor scores would not have the same context for all vendors, which could result in critical flaws being ignored over minor ones. The risk is too much. Hence, a new approach is needed. Enter risk-based vulnerability management, or RBVM.
Risk-based vulnerability management uses data like threat intelligence, asset criticality, and whether it is internet-facing to prioritize vulnerabilities. The core elements of the strategy are: are the threats being exploited in the wild; how much critical an asset is for the user’s daily operations, or does it hold sensitive data that can be exploited; how easy is it for an attacker to exploit such assets; and if such exploit occurs, how will impact the user’s business? In simpler words, it focuses on actual risk, rather than theoretical severity. How do these capabilities help the organizations?
RBVM benefits
For starters, it reduces the pressure on SOCs. It shows the vulnerabilities that are most likely to be exploited, allowing them to focus on such vulnerabilities first, which is critical for ensuring a better security posture. The software also leverages threat intelligence, historical data, and analytics to assess the likelihood and impact of an exploit. It offers insights into the user’s risk landscape that help them make informed decisions about resource allocation and security investments.
Here is a handy table to list the differences between these two methods:
| Aspect | Traditional Vulnerability Management (TVM) | Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (RBVM) |
| Primary Focus | Identifying and remediating all known vulnerabilities | Prioritizing vulnerabilities based on business and threat risk |
| Prioritization Criteria | Based on CVSS scores (severity) alone | Combines CVSS with threat intelligence, asset criticality, exploitability |
| Remediation Approach | Attempt to fix as many vulnerabilities as possible | Focus on remediating the most impactful and risky vulnerabilities |
| Context Awareness | Little to no consideration of asset importance or business impact | Deep understanding of asset value, business context, and risk posture |
| Efficiency | Resource-intensive, often leads to alert fatigue | Efficient use of resources by targeting high-risk areas |
| Threat Intelligence Integration | Rarely used or static | Actively uses real-time threat intelligence and exploit data |
| Reporting and Metrics | Reports on total vulnerabilities found and fixed | Reports on risk reduction and improvement in security posture |
| Business Alignment | Technical and siloed | Aligned with business risk and operational priorities |
| Automation and AI Use | Basic scanning and patching tools | Advanced analytics, AI-driven prioritization, automation workflows |
| Outcome | Vulnerability count reduction | Risk reduction and resilience |
Of course, there are several pitfalls that the SOCs and the CISOs must avoid in order to ensure that they get the most out of their deployments.
Keep an up-to-date inventory: Visibility is critical; the software cannot protect what it cannot see. A glaring example of such failures is the 2017 Equifax breach, which was caused by an unpatched Apache Struts vulnerability, as Equifax failed to identify all systems running Apache Struts due to an incomplete asset inventory. The fallout was massive. Personal data of 147 million people was exposed. The breach happened as the vulnerable server wasn’t patched because it wasn’t in the official asset list.
Keep no silos: Silos are always dangerous. In this case, even more. One team will send a list of patches, while another runs detection. This situation can have dire consequences. A known critical vulnerability will trigger alerts in the SIEM, but the SOC analysts will not know about the threat’s criticality. This danger can be avoided by tying vulnerability management with detection and response.
Not only CVSS: Patching is a critical step for improved security posture. The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is used by many teams. But the score is static. It does not take into account varying factors like asset importance. This may lead to minor vulnerabilities being prioritized over critical ones. Hence, CVSS should be paired with threat intelligence to get live threat scores.
Next steps: If you are switching to RBVM, how many items on this checklist have you crossed off?
- All assets successfully added to inventory
- Availability of up-to-date threat intelligence
- Vulnerability prioritization through risk tiers
- Automated threat tracking and reporting
Final word: Sujit Dubal, a security analyst from QKS Group, elaborates, “Risk-based vulnerability management isn’t just about patching smarter. It is about aligning every security action with its likely impact on businesses. It’s no longer enough to fix vulnerabilities; the goal is to reduce the risk that truly matters to the business.”
With the shift in the technology landscape, the focus needs to shift from only focusing on reducing vulnerabilities to reducing the overall business risk. What do you think?