Navigating Vulnerability Management in 2025
Recommendations & Strategies
We've seen first hand how the rapid rise in vulnerabilities (over 38,000 reported in 2024 alone) can overwhelm even the most prepared teams. For businesses seeking practical solutions, the good news is that innovations like AI-driven prioritisation, unified platforms, and Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) are making it easier to stay ahead, if scoped correctly and project governed robustly.
Research suggests these tools can reduce breach risks by up to three times when implemented effectively, though success depends on aligning them with your specific environment and operational resources (in other words, scope control or burn) . It seems likely that a hybrid approach, combining automation with human oversight, offers the most balanced path forward, especially amid debates on over-reliance on AI to which our AI SOC blogs have already alluded to.
This blog discusses the last 6 years of innovation in managing vulnerabilities, its legacy and the technology vendors and evolved metrics that have risen to the challenge to lessen the burden of what has been a major pain point for security teams for way too many years.
The Evolution of Vulnerability Management
In the ever-shifting world of cybersecurity, where threats evolve faster than defences, vulnerability management stands as a critical pillar for 'protecting' your business and it's important to note that a SOC typically does not get involved with Protection, it is Monitoring, Detecting & Responding. Strong Protective security should equate to less Detecting & Responding. We are now seeing the transition from reactive patching to proactive, intelligence-driven strategies.
With vulnerabilities surging to over 230,000 in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) by 2024 and exploit windows averaging just five days, organisations must adopt innovations that not only detect but also prioritise and remediate risks efficiently. Whilst the technology is maturing there is always more to it than a tech problem. The Governance and Operational aspects play a critical part in the success of a Vulnerability Management programme.
From 2019 to 2024, vulnerability management shifted from manual scans to automated, continuous processes integrated with DevSecOps, spurred by incidents like Log4j (2021) and MOVEit (2023).
Governance and Policy Shortcomings
Three key Governance pain points hinder the timely management and remediation of vulnerabilities and are often embedded deep in an organisations security architecture and culture. If you want to fix Attack Surface Management (new money term for Vulnerability Management) then fix Governance & Policy first.
- Unclear Ownership and Accountability: Many organisations lack clearly defined responsibility for vulnerability management. When no one “owns” the end-to-end remediation process, critical vulnerabilities often linger unpatched. In practice this fragmentation is a top reason programs fail. A recent Gartner survey found 43% of security leaders cite fragmented ownership as a primary cause of vulnerability management breakdowns. Great tools or advice cannot compensate for a broken governance structure; without clear accountability, identified issues fall through the cracks.
- Weak Integration into Security Strategy: Vulnerability management is too often treated as a periodic checklist item rather than embedded in the broader security program. Some organisations still run occasional scans and apply a few patches as a one-off project, assuming the job is done. This episodic approach reflects a compliance mindset instead of continuous risk management. In reality, effective programs integrate vulnerability management into daily operations and governance as it should be a business-critical, ongoing practice, not just “ticking regulatory boxes”. Lack of this integration leads to inadequate oversight and slow responses to emerging threats. The Risk Operation Centre (ROC) concept is now buzzing around the industry conferences and pitch decks and does speak nicely to the slow cadence problem of traditional vulnerability management programmes.
- Fragmented Policies and Tool Sprawl: Inconsistent processes and disjointed tooling across an organisation also impede vulnerability management. Large enterprises in particular often deploy multiple scanning platforms or patching tools that are not integrated, resulting in workflow gaps and limited visibility into enterprise-wide risk. Also, differing vulnerability management policies between departments or regions can create confusion and inefficiencies. This fragmentation makes it hard to get a unified view of vulnerabilities and hinders the enforcement of standard practices. A unified policy framework and integrated toolset are needed to avoid such silos.
The Operational Challenges
- Overwhelming Volume & Patch Backlogs: The sheer volume of new vulnerabilities is outpacing organisations’ ability to remediate them. In 2024, over 38,000 new CVEs were disclosed, a record number that has outstripped the capacity of many teams to patch promptly. This leads to a growing backlog of unpatched flaws and a “race against time,” as attackers often exploit new vulnerabilities within hours or days. Resource constraints exacerbate the problem: small and mid-sized enterprises may lack sufficient IT/security staff, while large enterprises have so many assets that patching all of them quickly is impractical. These limits result in prolonged exposure to risk when critical updates get delayed.
- Poor Risk Prioritisation: Not all vulnerabilities pose equal risk, yet many organisations lack robust prioritisation processes. Teams can end up wasting effort on numerous low-impact bugs while truly critical flaws remain unaddressed, which every security specialist knows is a major vulnerability management pitfall. The absence of a risk-based approach means remediation is not focused on the issues that matter most. Effective programs consider factors like asset criticality, threat intelligence (e.g. active exploits in the wild), and business impact to rank vulnerabilities, but immature programs often struggle to do this.The result is inefficient use of limited resources and potentially high-risk exposures being overlooked.
- IT–Security Team Communication Gaps: A frequent operational failure is the silo between security teams (who identify vulnerabilities) and IT operations (who implement patches). Weak communication and coordination between these groups lead to slow or inconsistent remediation. For example, if security scans find issues but there is no clear process to hand off fixes to IT with agreed priorities, patches can fall by the wayside. Misalignment on data and priorities is common when each team uses separate tools or metrics. Without a “single source of truth” and coordinated workflow, disagreements arise over what to fix first, creating delays. Closing this gap requires defined processes for cross-team collaboration and shared accountability (and incentives) for risk reduction.
- Lack of Asset Visibility: A foundational operational challenge is that you cannot secure what you cannot see. Many organisations (especially those with sprawling networks or cloud environments) lack a complete, up-to-date inventory of all IT assets and software. This poor visibility, often due to shadow IT or siloed inventories, means some systems never get scanned or patched at all. Undiscovered assets and “unknown” devices represent some of the biggest vulnerabilities. Without comprehensive asset management, vulnerability scans will miss portions of the environment, leaving blind spots that attackers can exploit. Ensuring a complete asset inventory is therefore critical to any successful vulnerability management program.
Overcoming The Common Challenges
Implementing advanced vulnerability management and CTEM frameworks brings significant security improvements, but organisations often face obstacles. Addressing these proactively is crucial for maximising effectiveness and ensuring a resilient defence against evolving cyber threats.
For automated patching, hybrid strategies with post-remediation checks mitigate risks, especially for the 51% of organisations still using legacy systems.
Data Silos & Fragmented Visibility
41% of teams struggle with fragmented vulnerability data, leading to delayed responses and overlooked threats. Effective prioritisation is hindered without a unified view.
Solution: Prioritise unified platforms with robust data correlation and integration. Foster operational cross-functional collaboration and common data taxonomies to break down silos.
Maintaining Patch Compliance
37% of organisations face ongoing challenges in consistent, timely patch deployment due to testing complexities, interdependencies, and diverse IT environments. This results in persistent backlogs, increasing the attack surface.
Solution: Implement a robust patch management lifecycle with automated deployment, intelligent scheduling, and comprehensive pre-deployment testing. Use continuous monitoring and reporting to ensure compliance and address deviations.
Managing Technical Debt & Legacy Systems
A substantial 51% of organisations rely on legacy systems lacking modern security, making them prime targets and complicating vulnerability management.
Solution: Develop specific strategies: network segmentation, virtual patching, and rigorous access control. Prioritise phased modernisation or replacement for critical systems, and conduct regular, tailored security assessments.
Overcoming these challenges requires a strategic, multi-faceted approach combining advanced technology, well-defined operational processes, and continuous improvement to strengthen your Protective focus.
The New Epoch in Vulnerability Management
In 2025, vulnerability management is converging into Unified Vulnerability Management (UVM), consolidating scanning tools and emphasising exploit detection and rapid response. This market is projected to grow from USD 16.51 billion in 2024 to USD 17.63 billion in 2025, driven by AI, automation, and stringent regulations like NIS2 and DORA. These forces are pushing organisations towards more sophisticated and compliant security.
AI and Automation
AI and advanced automation are now embedded in modern vulnerability management, powering comprehensive detection, intelligent prioritisation, and accelerated remediation. Predictive analytics, fuelled by AI, forecasts potential exploits, enabling proactive fixes and transforming security from reactive to adaptive.
Risk-Based Approaches
Reliance on generic CVSS is being replaced by nuanced, risk-based methodologies. These approaches integrate Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) for exploit probability, asset criticality, and broader business context, ensuring security teams focus resources on the most significant threats to their organisation's objectives.
Cloud-Native Tools
As organisations move to the cloud, specialised vulnerability management tools have emerged. These address cloud complexities, supporting shared responsibility models, scanning cloud configurations, and identifying vulnerabilities in serverless functions and microservices. They integrate seamlessly with DevSecOps pipelines for continuous security checks.
Continuous Monitoring
The shift from periodic to continuous, real-time monitoring is a defining trend, with 24% of organisations now scanning more than four times yearly. This provides an 'always-on' security stance rather than posture, detecting new vulnerabilities or misconfigurations as they emerge, and enabling agile responses in dynamic environments.
Integrated Compliance
Modern vulnerability management platforms now automate workflows for regulations like GDPR, NIS2, and DORA. These tools provide automated reporting, evidence collection, and mapping vulnerabilities to regulatory controls, significantly reducing manual effort and streamlining governance for audits.
Top Recommendations for Vulnerability Management
1
Prioritise Risk-Based Tools
Opt for platforms that go beyond basic scans, incorporating contextual factors like exploit likelihood and asset criticality to focus on high-impact threats.
2
Embrace CTEM for Holistic Coverage
This framework expands vulnerability management to include misconfigurations and identities, providing a proactive Quality Assurance cycle that aligns security with business goals.
3
Address Automation Challenges
While automated patching speeds remediation, potential downtime and coverage gaps for legacy systems highlight the need for tested hybrid models.
4
Regulatory Compliance as a Driver
With mandates like NIS2 and DORA rules, integrate solutions that automate reporting to ensure audit readiness without added strain on compliance teams.
Top Tool Recommendations
Whilst we don't like to focus too much on Vendor technologies we included this section to provide an impartial perspective in regards to the innovation that the tech industry is bringing to the market and will underpin strong governance and accountability to drive a vulnerability management program toward the intended business goals.
Drawing from the latest Forrester Wave™ for Unified Vulnerability Management (UVM) Q3 2025, these leading tools offer comprehensive coverage tailored to specific organisational needs.
For Mid-sized Enterprises: Wiz
Wiz excels with its agentless, cloud-native approach, providing unified code-to-cloud visibility and simplifying cloud security posture management (CSPM) and cloud workload protection (CWPP) for agile cloud environments.
For Larger Organisations: Tenable
Tenable offers robust benchmarking and exposure prioritisation across IT, cloud, and OT assets. Its deep scanning and predictive Lumin feature cater to complex, diverse infrastructures, providing a comprehensive view of cyber exposure.
For MSSPs: ConnectSecure
ConnectSecure is ideal for MSSPs, offering trends-focused, risk-based prioritisation tools. Its multi-tenancy design, scalable solutions, and automated reporting simplify compliance and audit readiness across diverse client portfolios.
For Hybrid Environments: Qualys
Qualys provides a unified cloud platform for organisations with on-premise and cloud infrastructures. It offers extensive vulnerability management, from asset discovery to compliance auditing, ensuring consistent security posture in complex hybrid IT environments.
For Threat Intelligence Integration: Rapid7
Rapid7's InsightVM integrates deep threat intelligence and attacker insights, moving beyond basic scanning. It offers contextualised vulnerability prioritisation, making it valuable for security teams focused on proactive risk reduction and comprehensive threat exposure management.
Top Tool Recommendations: 2025
From the Forrester Wave Q3 2025, top vendors include Armis (highest in current offering for data normalisation and innovation), Tenable (leader in asset breadth and prioritisation), and Wiz (excels in code-to-cloud visibility).
Other notables: Qualys VMDR for unified detection and Fortinet FortiRecon for CTEM alignment. Recent launches like CrowdStrike's Falcon Exposure Management emphasise agentless scanning.
Implementing CTEM: Practical Steps
Evidence strongly indicates that Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) is poised to be a significant game-changer for CISOs in 2025. Research predicts that organisations adopting a CTEM programme can reduce their breach risk by up to three times by 2026. A bold claim. This holistic approach moves beyond traditional vulnerability management, offering a continuous and proactive cycle to identify, validate, and remediate exposures across the entire attack surface. Understanding and implementing each phase of CTEM is crucial for building a resilient security posture.
01
1. Scoping Your Attack Surface
The initial phase involves clearly defining the boundaries of your digital and physical assets. This includes all known and potentially unknown elements that could be part of your attack surface. Tools like FortiRecon are good starting points, offering enhanced attack surface management capabilities and adversary-centric intelligence to map out your exposure points. Accurate scoping is fundamental for ensuring comprehensive coverage in subsequent steps.
02
2. Continuous Asset Discovery
Once scoped, the discovery phase involves the ongoing identification of all assets, including those that might be unknown, unmanaged, or rogue. This goes beyond traditional scanning to uncover shadow IT, misconfigurations, and forgotten assets that could pose significant risks. Continuous discovery ensures that as your environment evolves, new potential exposures are immediately brought to light.
03
3. Risk-Based Prioritisation
With a clear inventory of exposures, the next critical step is prioritisation. This isn't just about identifying vulnerabilities, but ranking them based on their real-world exploitability, the criticality of the affected asset to business operations, and current threat intelligence. Focus on high-impact threats that are most likely to be exploited in, leveraging contextual data to make informed decisions and allocate resources effectively.
04
4. Validation and Simulation
To truly understand your exposure, validation is key. This involves actively testing the effectiveness of existing security controls and verifying the true exploitability of identified vulnerabilities. Incorporating AI-powered simulations and breach and attack simulation (BAS) tools allows you to test exposures without disrupting live operations. We advise piloting these approaches in high-value, critical areas first to measure key metrics like Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR) before a full organisational rollout.
05
5. Mobilisation and Remediation
The final phase is mobilisation, which encompasses the orchestration and tracking of all remediation efforts. This includes assigning tasks, tracking progress, and ensuring that identified exposures are effectively and efficiently addressed. A well-defined feedback loop between security and operations teams is vital to ensure that remediation is not just a one-time fix but an integrated part of a continuous cycle, reinforcing your security posture over time.
Modern Vulnerability Prioritisation Metrics
While the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) provides a standardised, static severity metric, it is increasingly insufficient for the complexities of modern vulnerability management. CVSS alone often lacks the dynamic real-world context of active exploitability, business impact, or the likelihood of a vulnerability being weaponised. To gain a truly effective and actionable understanding of risk, organisations need to move beyond a singular reliance on CVSS and supplement it with more advanced, contextual methods.
These advanced methods provide better real-world context by integrating real-time threat intelligence and organisational specifics. The Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), for instance, offers a data-driven, probabilistic score indicating the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited in the next 30 days. This predictive scoring is invaluable for dynamic environments where an attack surface can evolve rapidly, enabling security teams to proactively prioritise vulnerabilities that are genuinely likely to be exploited rather than merely theoretically vulnerable. EPSS is best deployed when seeking to optimise remediation efforts and focus resources on immediate threats, moving beyond static severity to dynamic risk. EPSS alone is not the silver bullet as it has no contextual knowledge of your assets, impact to operations or existing security controls.
Conversely, the Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorisation (SSVC) provides a decision-tree model that helps align vulnerability remediation decisions with specific business priorities and stakeholder requirements. This is particularly beneficial for large, complex organisations as it facilitates cross-departmental buy-in and ensures that security efforts are directly contributing to organisational objectives. SSVC transitions vulnerability management from a technical exercise to a strategic business decision-making process. SSVC's only draw back is it's scalability, it is not a tool it is a decision tree logic that must be applied to every CVE.
Ultimately, combining multiple scoring methods is crucial for comprehensive risk assessment. By integrating EPSS's forward-looking exploit prediction, SSVC's organisational alignment, and real-time intelligence sources like the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalogue, security teams can build a more robust, nuanced, and effective prioritisation strategy. Practical implementation involves piloting these new metrics within a critical segment of the infrastructure, integrating them with existing vulnerability management platforms, and providing comprehensive training to security and operations teams to ensure a unified approach to risk.
Data for Risk Assessment and Final Advice
Data Sources for CTEM
Threat Intelligence: Predict exploits using feeds and TTPs
Vulnerability Scans: Identify CVEs and misconfigurations
Asset Management: Provide context through CMDB details
Breach Attack Simulation: Correlate results data from security controls testing
Identity Data: Assess access through IAM privileges
Our Final Recommendation
start with a vulnerability assessment audit, pilot CTEM in key areas, and choose tools based on use case. Foster operational cross-team collaborative culture and track metrics like Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR) to continuously measure improvement and provide clarity to the board on the organisations continuous security stance.
Steve Eyre - Security Operations Practitioner Cyber3D