Data Inaccuracy and Incompleteness: Ratings are generated based on data collected from various sources, including externally observable data points. If these data sources are inaccurate (including misattributed assets), outdated, or incomplete, the resulting rating may not accurately reflect the organization’s security posture.
Reliance on External Data: Cybersecurity ratings often start with, and some providers only rely on, externally gathered data, such as indicators of compromise and observed compromised systems. This reliance can lead to discrepancies, as internal security practices and controls that are not publicly disclosed might not be fully accounted for. Therefore, the rating might not reflect the entirety of an organization’s security efforts.
Lack of Contextual Insight: A common pitfall is the lack of contextual insight in cybersecurity ratings. An organization’s security rating might not consider industry-specific threats, regulatory compliance, or internal security policies that influence an organization’s security effectiveness. Without this context, the rating might misrepresent an organization’s true level of preparedness. Review our note about context-based security ratings above.
Misalignment with Internal Assessments: Organizations often conduct internal assessments to evaluate their security posture. These assessments might not align perfectly with the external cybersecurity rating due to inaccurate external asset identification, leading to confusion. The methodologies and criteria used in internal assessments might differ from those used by the rating platform, resulting in discrepancies and inaccuracy in the security rating.
Rapidly Evolving Threat Landscape: The cybersecurity landscape is constantly evolving, with new threats emerging regularly. Some security ratings providers are known to lag in the updates of security ratings they provide for organizations. A high cybersecurity rating today might not necessarily reflect the same level of security tomorrow. Rapidly changing threat vectors can render a seemingly accurate rating obsolete within a brief period.
Improper Data Interpretation: Even if the rating is accurate, improper interpretation can lead to misalignments. Stakeholders might misinterpret a rating as an indicator of complete security, failing to recognize that a rating is a snapshot of a moment in time and does not account for potential vulnerabilities. The security rating can ebb and flow along the security rating scale based on changes in landscape, vulnerabilities and remediations thus needing steady communication with stakeholders to understand that the measurement as represented by the security rating is a dynamic metric.
The accuracy of a cybersecurity rating is influenced by a multitude of factors, ranging from data quality to contextual understanding. Organizations must recognize that a security rating is not a standalone metric but rather a reflection of a complex set of variables. To ensure that the rating accurately represents an organization’s security posture, it’s crucial to validate the accuracy of data sources, contextualize the rating within the organization’s specific landscape, and consider internal assessments alongside external ratings. Embracing a holistic approach to cybersecurity assessment is essential for building a resilient and adaptable security strategy that remains aligned with the evolving threat landscape.