A decade or two ago, board executives asked "why should I care about cybersecurity?" Five years ago, they were asking "Are you patching our software vulnerabilities?" Now, they're starting to ask: "Are we actually secure?" They might want a simple 'yes' or 'no' initially, but eventually they'll say the most dreaded thing of all, and it'll be a demand, not a question: "Prove it".
Traditional vulnerability management and patching, won't survive that conversation. It's why a relatively new approach is gaining traction: Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM).
What's wrong with vulnerability management
We define security flaws using Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), and we tell each other how bad they are by assigning the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) to them.
There are three problems with that. There's a firehose of CVEs, the CVSS scores aren't helpful when triaging them, and AI is about to make the whole thing much worse.
CISOs are drowning in CVEs. The industry has spent decades creating tools that churn out vulnerability data and others that consume it. Few if any tell you which vulnerabilities an attacker could use to hurt you in your environment.
The volume of CVEs is making traditional vulnerability management (patch it and forget it) less tractable every year, says Drew Vanover, principal security strategist at Horizon3.
"Think about the last patch release that Microsoft put out," he says. "There were over 500 fixes in one patch cycle. That is incomprehensible. Nobody is going to be able to go through, vet, prioritize, and deploy all of those in a way that is truly considered safe."
The number of CVEs created each year has been soaring, putting more pressure on the US’ National Institute for Standards and Technology's National Vulnerability Database, which has now been backlogged for years. NIST threw up its hands in April and effectively declared CVE bankruptcy.
The US Department of Commerce highlighted the second issue (that current severity metrics aren't useful) as part of a report this May. Aside from launching a zinger at the NIST by saying that the NVD was poorly managed, it also suggested that it stop assigning CVSS scores altogether. These are highly subjective, it said.
They also depend on exactly what the exposed system is doing in a particular organization's infrastructure. Is a critical severity score in a product important if only one sandboxed system ever interacts with it? Or could an attacker chain three apparently innocuous vulns to cause damage that a business executive would care about?
AI will make vulnerability management harder
These complex problems are a headache, but AI is about to turn it into a full-on migraine. Frontier LLMs like Claude's Mythos are already surfacing zero-days at scale, heralding a flood of CVEs.
They don't just find bugs at scale; they also work much more quickly than their human counterparts to create and weaponize exploits. This makes it even more important that organizations patch the right bugs quickly. The Cloud Security Alliance now describes an asymmetric vulnerability cycle in which attackers can use AI to discover and exploit vulnerabilities more quickly, (increasingly before patches are even released), while organizations are taking longer to patch them.
What is CTEM?
Something has to change. Gartner figured this out in 2023, when it named CTEM a top cybersecurity trend. This is a way of staying on top of your vulnerabilities by triaging them properly. To do that, you have to go beyond the technical implications of a security flaw and understand what it really means for your business.
Gartner lays out five steps to CTEM:
● Scoping Find the assets that carry significant business impact and prioritize them.
● Discovery Find how they're exposed by analyzing their weaknesses in depth.
● Prioritization Rank those exposures based on real business risk.
● Validation Test out the vulnerabilities to see if they're exploitable.
● Mobilization Fix them with a proper incident response plan.
How automated pen testing helps manage vulnerabilities
This approach promises to nail the security flaws that matter to an organization, but it's also more complex than traditional vulnerability management. It needs automation, which is what Horizon3 is providing with NodeZero.
Scoping out systems is a commodity practice these days. So is discovery. Horizon3 is leaving those to partners so it can focus on the parts of the CTEM framework that aren't yet easy for customers to solve. Those are prioritization by business impact, and mobilization.
NodeZero runs penetration tests across an organization's infrastructure and documents the exploitable paths with evidence a defender can follow. The output is the wheat sifted from the chaff; a shorter list of exposures that security teams and developers can focus on.
The impressive part here is the chain-of-attack behavior. NodeZero probes for weaknesses, exploits them, and then pivots based on what it finds. This means it adapts to the environment to extend its attack, just as a real attacker adapts attacks and moves laterally through systems.
This approach is based on a deterministic machine learning expert system rather than a general LLM, explains Vanover. "A good analogy is to think about the medical profession," he says. "A GP is your general LLM trying to cover everything. They know a little bit about a lot, but they aren't the experts, and that's where you start having hallucinations and guesses and misses."
The company only uses generative AI for specific tasks. Using it to parse a two petabyte S3 blob looking for sensitive data or identifying high-value credentials, with data staying inside the customer's boundary via AWS Bedrock, for example. What it doesn't do is run amok spawning rogue agents in your system.
Vanover says the value here is in proving that you've clobbered load-bearing security bugs. "If we say that we can exploit something, it's because we did, and we'll show you the proof in the platform," he says.
The next step is closing the loop by retesting the exploit after it's been dealt with. Teams get to close tickets because NodeZero can no longer traverse the attack path. That is a testable definition of "fixed" and one that translates into a risk metric a CFO can read.
Horizon3 also wants to solve customers' tool sprawl problems with a single product that handles all of the heavy CTEM lifting. A common failure mode of enterprise CTEM programs is a stack of vendors whose handoffs create precisely the blind spots the framework was meant to eliminate. That disappears when it's all under one service.
Is automated penetration testing safe?
CISOs might be nervous letting an autonomous penetration testing system loose on production systems. It sounds like something that could break running processes. Why not just test against a digital twin instead?
Testing in production is the safest way to find bugs, retorts Vanover. That's because environments drift frequently, especially in an agile world driven by short development sprints and automated changes to code. If a user changes a password or a team pushes a feature fragment, a digital twin system won't reflect reality.
So Horizon3 focuses on strong production guardrails instead.
"I don't need to ransom your system to prove to you that I can ransom it," Vanover says. "If I can get on the system, install a remote access tool, create a file, encrypt the file, and delete that file, I've just proven that I can ransom your system."
He says Horizon3 has run more than 320,000 production tests across customer organizations. These include some that are especially nervous about what's poking around in their systems, such as the NSA and the largest medical records processor on the planet, along with a couple of large healthcare providers.
Where can I start with CTEM?
Gartner's CTEM framework is powerful, but it might also be daunting for CISOs. Vanover advises them to begin by picking one thing and doing it well.
"No organization is going to implement CTEM in a year. That is a recipe for failure," he says. "Break it down. Look at places for the low-hanging fruit." You could do worse than look at what systems are actually reachable instead of blindly trusting an asset inventory that might be out of date.
The race is on to embrace CTEM, because metrics like the number of patches applied won't satisfy the board for much longer. They don't describe how much exploitable surface still exists. The point of running the CTEM loop is to move reporting from activity to outcomes, so that the board gets to see fewer exploitable paths and a smaller blast radius.
The new goal is to prove that a security control worked, not just that you paid for it.
Want to operationalize CTEM but don’t know where to start? Check out this whitepaper from Horizon3
Sponsored by Horizon3
