Security Posture

5 automated security scanners

Defense-in-Depth Analysis

Purpose: This scanner analyzes the defense-in-depth posture of a company by examining its web infrastructure and security practices. It evaluates the presence and effectiveness of multi-factor authentication, encryption, endpoint detection and response (EDR), network segmentation, and monitoring to determine the level of vulnerability and risk associated with the organization’s digital assets.

What It Detects:

The scanner identifies whether multiple layers of security controls are implemented across different segments of the company’s infrastructure, including perimeter, network, applications, and data handling components.
It checks for the presence of encryption to protect sensitive information during transit and at rest.
It assesses the use of multi-factor authentication (MFA) to enhance account security beyond basic password protection.
The scanner looks for mentions of EDR solutions that can proactively detect and respond to potential threats on endpoints.
It evaluates the existence of network segmentation, which is crucial for isolating critical systems from less secure components within the same network.
The tool also checks for robust monitoring and logging mechanisms to track and analyze security events in real-time.

Inputs Required:

Domain: The target web address of the company’s main site.
Company Name: The legal name or identifier associated with the organization.

Business Impact: Evaluating the defense-in-depth strategy is pivotal for understanding an organization’s overall cybersecurity posture and resilience against sophisticated cyber threats. A robust defense-in-depth framework can significantly mitigate risks associated with data breaches, unauthorized access attempts, and other security incidents that could lead to significant financial losses, legal repercussions, and reputational damage.

Risk Levels:

Critical: The organization exhibits a critical vulnerability if the scanner detects only a single layer of security controls or fails to identify essential multi-factor authentication mechanisms for key services. This level is associated with severe risks where unauthorized access could lead to catastrophic consequences such as theft of sensitive data, operational disruption, and significant financial loss.
High: A high risk scenario occurs when the defense-in-depth strategy lacks critical components like encryption or comprehensive endpoint protection. This severity indicates a substantial likelihood of exposure to serious threats that can be exploited with ease.
Medium: Medium risk is assigned when there are gaps in security practices, such as incomplete network segmentation or lack of robust monitoring systems. While these vulnerabilities pose significant risks, they typically require more complex attacks and are less likely to lead to immediate critical incidents compared to higher severities.
Low: Low risk findings pertain to minor deficiencies that do not significantly impact the overall cybersecurity posture but still warrant attention for continuous improvement. These include missing or incomplete documentation of security measures and some instances where alternative mitigation strategies could be more effective than what is currently implemented.
Info: Informational findings are less severe issues that provide insights into potential areas for enhancement without posing an immediate threat to the organization’s digital assets. They serve as a starting point for improving security practices through targeted improvements or further investigation.

Example Findings:

The company lacks comprehensive encryption across all data handling processes, which significantly increases the risk of unauthorized access and data theft.
There is no mention of EDR solutions in place to protect endpoints from potential cyber threats, indicating a gap in proactive defense mechanisms against advanced persistent threats.

Security Tool Rationalization

Purpose: The Security_Tool_Rationalization scanner is designed to evaluate and analyze the strategic use of security tools within a company. It aims to identify the effectiveness, redundancy, and integration of these tools to ensure a robust and efficient security posture.

What It Detects:

The total number of security tools used by the company across various categories such as SIEM logging, EDR endpoints, network security, application security, cloud security, identity access management, vulnerability management, threat intelligence, DevSecOps, and orchestration.
The breakdown of how many tools are allocated to each category.
Identification of any overlapping or redundant tool usage within the same category or between different categories.
The presence of integration among the identified tools through API integrations, platform approaches, and the detection of an orchestration layer that could potentially enhance security operations.
The mention of job requirements for specific security tools in company job postings, indicating potential future use and dependencies on these tools.
Gaps in tool coverage, particularly focusing on areas where no tools are currently deployed but critical for enhancing security posture.

Inputs Required:

Domain: The main website address of the company under evaluation.
Company Name: The legal name or commonly known name of the company.

Business Impact: The strategic use and integration of security tools significantly influence a company’s ability to detect, respond, and prevent cyber threats effectively. Inefficient tool usage can lead to missed opportunities for threat detection, slower response times, and less robust security measures that could be exploited by adversaries.

Risk Levels:

Critical: The scanner identifies no mention of integration among tools or a significant lack thereof, which could lead to critical vulnerabilities in the company’s cybersecurity strategy.
High: There is evidence of redundant tool usage within categories or between different security functions, indicating potential inefficiencies and increased risk exposure.
Medium: The presence of some overlap in tool usage but with opportunities for more efficient integration across tools and functions.
Low: A well-balanced use of security tools without significant overlaps or redundancies, demonstrating a strong foundation for effective cybersecurity practices.
Info: Informal findings related to the absence of specific tools that could be beneficial for certain security aspects but are not currently deployed.

Example Findings:

The company uses multiple SIEM solutions (Splunk and Datadog), which might lead to data redundancy and potential inconsistencies in log management.
There is no evidence of orchestration tools being used, indicating a lack of automated response mechanisms that could enhance the speed and effectiveness of security operations.

Incident Response Readiness

Purpose: The purpose of this scanner is to analyze the incident response readiness of a given domain and company by evaluating various indicators such as contact information, team structure, documentation, hiring activity, and risk management practices.

What It Detects:

This scanner detects whether security email contacts are present and if there’s a mention of an SOC or IR team in the website content.
It also checks for the presence of an incident response plan, playbooks, and communication protocols in documentation.
The scanner identifies hiring activity related to incident response roles on the company’s careers page.
By evaluating these indicators, the scanner aims to provide insights into the organization’s ability to respond to security incidents effectively.

Inputs Required:

domain: The target domain for which the assessment is being conducted.
company_name: The name of the company associated with the domain.

Business Impact: The business impact of this scanner lies in enhancing an organization’s ability to respond swiftly and effectively to security incidents, thereby mitigating potential damage and maintaining stakeholder trust. Proper incident response planning and practices are crucial for maintaining a secure and reliable digital environment.

Risk Levels:

Critical: The scanner flags critical findings when there is no contact information or mention of an SOC/IR team in the website content. This can lead to severe consequences if the organization lacks essential communication channels during an incident.
High: High risk levels are assigned when key indicators such as security plans and playbooks are absent, indicating a significant gap in organizational preparedness for potential incidents.
Medium: Medium risk is indicated when there are mixed findings between low and high, suggesting areas of improvement but not critical enough to warrant immediate attention.
Low: Low risk levels are assigned when all essential indicators such as contact methods and team mentions are present, indicating a well-prepared organization in terms of incident response readiness.
Info: Informational findings pertain to the detection of hiring activity for IR roles, which while not critical, can be indicative of proactive management but does not directly impact immediate risk levels.

Example Findings:

A company with a domain “example.com” has no security email contacts and mentions of an IR team on its website, leading to a critical risk level indicating inadequate incident response readiness.
Another company, “testcorp.net”, lacks any documentation related to incident response plans or playbooks, resulting in a high risk level due to significant gaps in preparedness for potential security incidents.

Security Team Capability

Purpose: The purpose of this scanner is to analyze and assess the capability of a company’s security team by evaluating its size, job roles, specializations, expertise indicators, leadership presence, maturity levels, and identifying any gaps that could potentially expose the organization to vulnerabilities.

What It Detects:

Team Size: The number of employees categorized as part of the security team and how this is determined (e.g., by job roles or direct reports).
Job Analysis: Breakdown of total security jobs, role types (engineering, analyst, architect, etc.), specializations (application security, cloud security, network security, etc.), and seniority levels.
Expertise Indicators: Certifications held by employees relevant to cybersecurity roles and advanced skills possessed by the team members.
Leadership Presence: Identification of whether a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) or similar role exists within the company and their level of visibility in terms of leadership presence.
Maturity Indicators: Assessment of how specialized, senior, and diverse roles are distributed among the security team and the calculated maturity score based on these indicators.
Capability Gaps: Identified gaps in the team’s capabilities that could be exploited by adversaries to gain unauthorized access or compromise sensitive data.

Inputs Required:

Domain: The web address of the company’s main website.
Company Name: The official name of the company being assessed.

Business Impact: Assessing and maintaining a robust security posture is crucial for protecting sensitive information, intellectual property, and ensuring business continuity. A weak or inadequately staffed security team can lead to significant vulnerabilities that may be exploited by cyber threats, potentially resulting in data breaches, financial loss, legal repercussions, and damage to the company’s reputation.

Risk Levels:

Critical: If no CISO is found or if there are critical gaps in capability (e.g., lack of senior roles), indicating a severe deficiency that could lead to immediate vulnerabilities.
High: If the team lacks diversity and has predominantly entry-level positions, suggesting inadequate growth paths for the security team.
Medium: Indicated by low maturity scores or moderate numbers of specialized but fewer senior roles.
Low: For teams with adequate representation across specializations and seniority levels, though not necessarily indicative of a perfect state.
Info: Used for findings that do not significantly impact the security posture but are informative (e.g., presence of only entry-level positions without any senior expertise).

Example Findings:

A company with no reported CISO and primarily junior staff in cybersecurity roles might be at a high risk due to potential lack of strategic oversight and experience management.
An organization showing low maturity scores despite having some specializations could indicate underdeveloped capabilities that need significant improvement for enhanced security posture.

Security Control Coverage

Purpose: This scanner evaluates the security control coverage for a given domain and company by analyzing the presence of specific controls mentioned in documentation. It checks for preventive, detective, and corrective measures to ensure comprehensive protection against potential threats.

What It Detects:

The scanner identifies whether critical authentication, logging, and backup controls are present.
It assesses the completeness of the CIA (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability) triad.
It evaluates the balance between preventive, detective, and corrective security measures.
It checks for compliance mentions with relevant frameworks like SOC 2 and ISO 27001.
The scanner also examines the depth of documentation to ensure adequate coverage of security controls.

Inputs Required:

Domain: The target website’s domain name.
Company Name: The legal name or identifier of the company associated with the domain.

Business Impact: Ensuring robust security control coverage is crucial for protecting sensitive information and maintaining business continuity. Inadequate controls can lead to significant risks, including data breaches and operational disruptions that could severely impact a company’s reputation and financial stability.

Risk Levels:

Critical: The scanner flags when critical categories or controls are missing entirely. This indicates severe vulnerabilities with potential catastrophic consequences.
High: When the balance between preventive, detective, and corrective measures is significantly skewed, leading to incomplete protection against threats.
Medium: Indicates deficiencies in security practices that could be exploited but do not pose an immediate threat of significant harm.
Low: Provides informational findings about areas where documentation might be lacking or less critical controls are present.

Example Findings:

The scanner identified a missing backup plan, which is crucial for data recovery and continuity in case of system failures. This could lead to severe consequences if data loss occurs due to inadequate backups.
A lack of comprehensive authentication mechanisms was detected, posing significant risks as unauthenticated access can compromise sensitive information stored on the platform.