Bridging the Gap Between Security Metrics and Key Risk Indicators: An Empirical Framework for Vulnerability Prioritization
This addresses the critical problem for organizations of inefficient vulnerability remediation by providing a more effective risk-based prioritization framework.
The paper tackles the problem of vulnerability prioritization by proposing a Key Risk Indicator framework that integrates threat, impact, and exposure dimensions, achieving ROC-AUC 0.927 and AUPRC 0.223 on real-world data, compared to 0.747 and 0.011 for the standard CVSS method.
Organisations overwhelmingly prioritize vulnerability remediation using Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) severity scores, yet CVSS classifiers achieve an Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC) of 0.011 on real-world exploitation data, near random chance. We propose a composite Key Risk Indicator grounded in expected-loss decomposition, integrating dimensions of threat, impact, and exposure. We evaluated the KRI framework against the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog using a comprehensive dataset of 280,694 Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs). KRI achieves Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve (ROC-AUC) 0.927 and AUPRC 0.223 versus 0.747 and 0.011 for CVSS (24 percents, 20). Ablation analysis shows Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) alone achieves AUPRC 0.365, higher than full KRI (0.223), confirming that EPSS and KRI serve distinct objectives: EPSS maximizes raw exploit detection, while KRI re-orders by impact and exposure, capturing 92.3 percents of impact-weighted remediation value at k=500 versus 82.6 percents for EPSS, and surfacing 1.75 more Critical-severity exploited CVEs. KRI's net benefit exceeds EPSS whenever the severity premium exceeds 2. While EPSS serves as a robust baseline for exploit detection, the KRI framework is the superior choice for organizations seeking to align remediation efforts with tangible risk reduction.