The most obvious difference between CTEM vs vulnerability management is what vulnerabilities are scoped and how they are validated.
CTEM programs decide what is in scope based on business impact. They prioritize what to assess and test with questions like “How would this asset cause disruption if hacked?” and then validate whether vulnerabilities create real risks.
Vulnerability management programs typically decide what is in scope much more generally—first identifying vulnerabilities in assets and then matching those to business risks. A vulnerability management team sets out to answer the question, “How many CVEs are in our environment?” They discover CVEs based on versions and do not prove that they are exploitable.
This change in how CTEM scoping starts and its ability to prove that risks are exploitable, alongside the other differences explained below, results in better risk reduction outcomes compared to traditional vulnerability management methods.
Bottom line: Using CTEM to guide cyber risk reduction is more sustainable and efficient than traditional vulnerability management.
Scoping Beyond the Asset Register
As mentioned above, CTEM takes a broader and more realistic approach to what is in scope and actually dangerous compared to vulnerability management.
Vulnerability management programs tend to focus on assets inside the corporate network or assets known to network administrators.
Scanning and assessment are typically limited to websites, applications, and servers listed in the asset register that are directly managed or at least known. This approach fails to account for modern IT risks.
Most corporate networks are bigger than the assets their owners know about.
Leaked data, shadow IT applications, SaaS apps, and other potential risk sources that live outside the firewall are mostly unknown and are, therefore, outside the scope of traditional vulnerability management programs.
These unmanaged risks are also responsible for an increasingly large proportion of security incidents.
According to IBM’s latest data breach report, 35% of breaches last year involved “shadow data,” i.e., data stores not accounted for by organizations. The same report also noted that breaches that start with attackers targeting unknown (to the organization) risks also take the longest to find and fix.
So, while vulnerability management typically covers:
- Servers.
- Known workstations and devices.
- VMs (whether on-prem or in the cloud).
CTEM also extends coverage to:
- Identities and credentials.
- SaaS applications (known and unknown).
- Cloud infrastructures.
- Code repositories.
- And more.
Validating Risks Through Testing
Unlike vulnerability management, CTEM uses active testing to verify risks, adding an extra layer of filtering.
Even in a relatively straightforward environment with a few hundred devices, there can be several thousand CVEs present at once. Devices fall out of version, get lost, lose patch support, etc. If an IT team were to make each known or likely CVE a separate ticket, they would never get to do anything else.
The only sustainable solution for vulnerability management teams has been to ignore a large percentage of the risks they find. But which ones are really safe to ignore?
Estimates vary, but less than 1% of CVEs are exploited by threat actors each year. In any given environment, an even smaller percentage will be exploitable. Most real risks are due to environmental factors, e.g., what a vulnerable asset is connected to.
Some vulnerability scanners try to get around this challenge by giving vulnerabilities their own risk rating based on internal research, e.g., Tenable’s VPR score.
However, even when a CVE appears less dangerous based on its initial risk rating, it can still pose significant threats. For example, a high CVE score on a device with no internet connection (or a very rare connection) to the web will be a very different kind of risk to a less critical CVE on a device that constantly gets inbound web traffic.
The only way to know which risks are dangerous and which can be safely ignored is to test them. That is what CTEM does. CTEM programs validate risks by testing them against the same kind of attack vectors threat actors would use in that context.
Most organizations sustain CTEM programs by automating testing and using a CTEM platform. The automotive enterprise Porsche uses the Element Security Platform’s active monitoring technology to validate the existence of vulnerabilities in their environment in real time.
As a result, Porsche—and other organizations using Element Security’s CTEM platform—can assess how their internet-facing assets would respond to targeted attacks. This allows them to prioritize their remediation efforts on actions that will significantly reduce their external security risks.
Fixing Risks Through Mobilization
A vulnerability management team might find risks, but who’s responsible for fixing them? Getting asset owners to fix risks (and tracking the impact of those fixes) can be a serious challenge.
CTEM front runs this problem by planning out who is responsible for fixing risks as part of the Mobilization stage. The business risk identified is mitigated by the stakeholders responsible for that business function, like DevOps or IT. (Learn more about CTEM benefits).
Mobilization is getting all the relevant stakeholders involved (or “mobilized”) to fix the risks identified during the previous CTEM stages.
You could do this in vulnerability management, too, but CTEM mobilization teams are able to use the continuous data created by the other CTEM processes (e.g., what risks are important at any given time) and be extremely targeted.
The CTEM advantage is that it provides clear feedback on how risks are being managed, making it easier to involve management and other stakeholders.
CTEM vs Vulnerability Management At a Glance
| Feature / Aspect | CTEM (Continuous Threat Exposure Management) | Vulnerability Management |
| Scoping basis | Business impact-driven.
Scope is based on how assets could disrupt the business if compromised. |
Vulnerability count-driven.
Identifies vulnerabilities first, focusing on the number of CVEs present. |
| Scope coverage |
More comprehensive coverage beyond traditional assets. |
Limited to assets in the asset register. |
| Risk identification approach | Risk validation through testing.
Tests risks against real attack vectors to determine actual danger. |
Vulnerability identification
Focuses on finding and cataloging CVEs without initial risk validation. |
| Handling unmanaged risks | Comprehensive inclusion.
Accounts for shadow IT, SaaS apps, and other external risk sources. |
Limited inclusion.
Primarily focuses on assets within the corporate network, often missing unmanaged risks. |
| Risk rating and prioritization | Contextual testing.
Assesses risks based on actual exploitability and environmental factors through testing. |
Static risk ratings.
Uses predefined scores (e.g., Tenable’s VPR) without considering the specific environment context. |
| Risk fixing process | Planned Mobilization.
Defines who is responsible for fixing risks during the Mobilization stage, involving relevant stakeholders early. |
Reactive assignment.
Identifies risks but leaves responsibility to asset owners, which can be challenging to manage. |
| Technological approach | CTEM platforms.
Utilizes automated testing and CTEM platforms (e.g., Element Security) for efficient risk validation. |
Vulnerability scanners.
Uses scanners to identify CVEs but lacks comprehensive automated risk validation. |
Try Instant CTEM with Element Security
Element Security is a full-cycle CTEM solution that is extremely easy to deploy and use. Simply specify a target IP within our platform, and within minutes, you can start the CTEM process in your environment.
Try a free Element Security demo today to see just how easily you can get CTEM benefits.