Read Time: 8 minutes
Vulnerability prioritization represents the critical practice of determining which unpatched vulnerabilities on corporate networks should be addressed first based on their potential cyber risk impact. This process forms a cornerstone of risk-based vulnerability management (RBVM), where the primary consideration involves assessing the risk each unpatched vulnerability poses to an organization's overall security posture.
Between one-third and more than 50% of security breaches can be traced to unpatched vulnerabilities, depending on the study referenced. Many vulnerabilities exploited in breaches were one or two years old at the time of compromise—far from the dramatic zero-day exploits that capture headlines but rarely cause actual breaches.
The reality of vulnerability exploitation proves far more mundane than Hollywood portrayals suggest. Since unpatched vulnerabilities present attractive targets for threat actors, organizations must patch them as quickly as possible—a challenge easier stated than accomplished.
Over 22,000 new vulnerabilities were discovered in 2022, averaging approximately 60 per day. While not every organization faces exposure to all daily discoveries, large enterprises typically experience constant streams of new, relevant vulnerabilities layered atop hundreds or thousands already existing on their networks without remediation.
In an ideal scenario, vulnerability remediation teams would patch all vulnerabilities immediately upon discovery, rendering prioritization unnecessary. However, two fundamental realities prevent this approach: patching requires often-scarce resources, and patching can cause operational disruption—though much less frequently than commonly perceived.
Like patient triage in busy hospitals or battlefield aid stations, treating every vulnerability with identical urgency proves impossible, necessitating risk-based prioritization.
Several critical factors should guide vulnerability prioritization decisions:
Every identified vulnerability receives a severity score through the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS), ranging from 0 to 10 and corresponding to Low, Medium, High, and Critical designations. While CVSS scores provide useful starting points for prioritization, their primary deficiency involves lack of environmental context.
A "critical" Common Vulnerability and Exposure (CVE) might exist on internet-facing devices in one network while remaining completely isolated from public exposure in another, significantly reducing risk in the latter environment.
Perhaps the most crucial prioritization factor involves whether working exploits exist for specific vulnerabilities. Exploits represent small software programs enabling network penetration through unpatched vulnerabilities.
Threat actors can purchase exploits on dark web marketplaces, allowing criminal cyber activity without requiring technical expertise or development time. Those with technical skills monetize their knowledge by developing and selling exploits, generating financial gain with reduced criminal risk exposure.
Unpatched vulnerabilities with known, available exploits clearly represent high organizational risk and demand prioritization.
Device network location significantly impacts vulnerability risk assessment. Internet-facing devices pose substantially higher risks than identical vulnerabilities on isolated systems. Thoughtful network segmentation design can dramatically mitigate risks from inevitable unpatched vulnerabilities.
Asset importance influences prioritization decisions but can create false security perceptions. Business-critical assets clearly deserve more attention than systems that can remain offline with minimal immediate impact.
However, attackers rarely limit network access to initially compromised devices, employing various techniques to move laterally through networks while remaining undetected. Therefore, asset criticality shouldn't be overemphasized in prioritization formulas.
Some organizations face specific compliance requirements affecting vulnerability remediation prioritization, though detailed compliance discussion exceeds this article's scope.
A more sophisticated prioritization factor involves "gold-nuggetting"—identifying outstanding network assets using techniques employed by experienced penetration testers and their criminal counterparts. This approach was pioneered by AI researchers at Delve Security (now part of SecureWorks).
Penetration testers survey networks seeking lowest-hanging fruit: devices that appear out of place, unique relative to network architecture, and presumably less rigorously maintained by IT teams. The IT team might even be unaware of such assets, creating ideal targets for both testers and threat actors.
A Linux server in a predominantly Windows network environment exemplifies this concept. As Delve Security explains:
"Enterprise networks house thousands of devices (IoT devices, servers, laptops, etc.), some of which present particularly ripe targets for bad actors. Over years of experience, the best penetration testers can quickly identify priority assets best suited for compromise or information collection and launching successful attacks.
When evaluating network scan results, typically Nmap outputs, experienced penetration testers or intruders quickly develop network 'feel.' During critical early attack stages, intruders attempt understanding relationships between observed network devices and underlying data structures—all highly context-dependent. Only after understanding overall network context can they begin 'digging for gold.'"
Given hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of unpatched vulnerabilities on most enterprise networks, manual vulnerability prioritization becomes impractical. Fortunately, numerous automated vulnerability prioritization solutions leverage machine learning to help remediation teams identify highest-risk vulnerabilities.
Internet searches for "automated vulnerability prioritization" yield multiple options, but understanding the distinction between comprehensive automated vulnerability management and specific vulnerability prioritization sub-functions remains crucial. It's equally important distinguishing vendors relying primarily on CVSS scores from those incorporating the comprehensive factors discussed here.
The obvious next step involves patching unpatched vulnerabilities, beginning with highest-priority items. However, as remediation teams understand, this proves easier said than accomplished due to two primary challenges: resource constraints and disruption fears.
Since patching presents inherent difficulties, prioritizing highest-risk vulnerabilities becomes even more critical. However, "high priority" lists could include tens or hundreds of patches, each requiring unique system-specific patching strategies.
IT Agent (formerly TrackD) provides remediation teams with real-world, real-time data significantly influencing patching strategy processes. Similar to Google Reviews for local businesses or online products, the IT Agent platform gathers patching telemetry from organizations using the solution, specifically tracking whether applied patches caused disruptions.
Armed with this intelligence, remediation teams can adjust confidence levels about potential patch disruptions and modify patching strategies accordingly. The platform's ultimate goal involves facilitating greater auto-patching adoption, removing patches from manual attention requirements, dramatically increasing remediation team productivity while reducing organizational cyber risk profiles.
Contrary to widespread perception, patches rarely cause disruption. Private studies indicate fewer than 2% of patches prove disruptive, yet disruption fears continue plaguing vulnerability remediation communities.
Three primary factors explain this disconnect:
Legacy Trauma: Early networking days featured patches that frequently caused disruptions. Although those times have passed, psychological impacts persist in organizational memory and practices.
Information Gaps: Until recently, remediation teams lacked methods for determining which patches among thousands fall into the problematic 2% versus safe deployments. Without solid historical data, teams effectively gamble—albeit with favorable odds.
Risk Calculation Complexity: Risk combines likelihood of occurrence with consequence severity. Even with less than 2% disruption probability, potential impact can prove extremely painful for organizations and individual career trajectories of remediation team members.
Modern vulnerability prioritization demands sophisticated approaches combining traditional risk factors with real-world deployment intelligence. Organizations that embrace data-driven prioritization and patching strategies can significantly improve their security postures while maintaining operational stability.
IT Agent's crowdsourced patch intelligence represents a paradigm shift from fear-based vulnerability management to confidence-driven security operations. By providing unprecedented visibility into patch safety profiles, organizations can prioritize vulnerabilities more effectively while deploying patches more aggressively.
This transformation enables security teams to focus limited resources on genuinely high-risk vulnerabilities while confidently auto-patching the vast majority of updates that pose minimal disruption risk. The result: faster vulnerability remediation, reduced organizational attack surface, and more efficient security operations that protect against real threats rather than imagined risks.
Powerful, self-serve product and growth analytics to help you convert, engage.
Dive into the heart of innovation with our 'Coding Chronicles' blog section. Explore a rich tapestry of articles, tutorials, and insights that unravel.
