Using metrics and scoring systems to measure cybersecurity efforts has become increasingly common among businesses looking to improve their security postures. However, many of these systems face criticism for their imperfections and limitations in accurately assessing security risks.
Security metrics have become essential tools for companies seeking to manage risk and improve their overall security. Bruce Schneier, Chief Technology Officer of Inrupt, emphasizes the importance of comparative metrics in evaluating security efforts compared to industry peers. This allows companies to showcase their security posture relative to others and potentially protect themselves against lawsuits by demonstrating that they are not alone in facing similar challenges.
From software vulnerabilities to corporate security and human risk, efforts to assign scores and reputations to various components of the IT ecosystem are on the rise. Detection and response platform Sweet Security recently partnered with startup Illustria to offer reputation services to detect risky changes in open source software packages. Meanwhile, security posture ratings providers such as Bitsight and SecurityScorecard are gaining popularity among cyber insurers, who use these metrics to assess risk and determine insurance premiums.
One common challenge with scoring security is subjectivity, particularly when evaluating vulnerabilities in unique organizational environments. The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS), for example, allows researchers to assess the severity of vulnerabilities using a 10-point system but requires organizations to interpret the impact in their context. Critics argue that this approach lacks objectivity and fails to provide a comprehensive picture of security risks.
Despite its limitations, security scoring systems are increasingly adopted by industries like insurance, where data-driven decision-making is crucial. Insurers leverage scoring models to evaluate companies’ cybersecurity postures and determine their likelihood of suffering a cyber incident. By identifying poorly performing companies, insurers can reduce losses and incentivize better security practices among policyholders.
Software ratings are also gaining traction as concerns over the security of the software supply chain grow. Projects like the OpenSSF Scorecard aim to assess the reputation and development practices of open-source projects by assigning numerical scores based on various criteria. These ratings help developers make informed decisions about the components they use and accelerate the approval process for integrating open-source software into their projects.
In conclusion, while security metrics and scoring systems have their limitations, they serve as valuable tools for companies looking to enhance their cybersecurity postures. By leveraging these systems effectively and focusing on actionable insights rather than compliance-driven scores, organizations can make informed decisions to strengthen their security defenses. As the cybersecurity landscape evolves, companies must continue to refine their measurement approaches and ensure that metrics align with their strategic security objectives.