Intruder Ranked 38th Fastest Growing Technology Company in the UK in the 2023 Deloitte Technology Fast 50
Intruder attributes its 836 per cent revenue growth to a gap in the cybersecurity market for simple but effective vulnerability management
London, UK — Intruder, the vulnerability scanning and attack surface management platform, today announced that it has ranked number 38 in the 2023 Deloitte UK Technology Fast 50, a ranking of the 50 fastest-growing technology companies in the UK. Rankings are based on percentage revenue growth over the last four years. Intruder grew 836 per cent during this period.
Intruder’s CEO and founder, Chris Wallis, said, "Being the only cybersecurity company on this list demonstrates how we’ve hit the right formula in helping organisations of all sizes – who know how important cybersecurity is but often have limited internal resources to dedicate to it – to reduce their exposure to cyber attacks. We help these companies sort the important issues from the noise and establish robust and continuous security with a fraction of the effort usually required."
Kiren Asad, lead partner for the Deloitte UK Technology Fast 50 programme, said: “The impressive growth amongst this year’s Fast 50 companies demonstrates the continued tenacity of the UK’s technology industry, despite ongoing economic headwinds, as it cements itself amongst the top locations for venture capital investment globally.
“The Deloitte UK Technology Fast 50 awards acknowledge and showcase the talent and innovation of tech businesses across the country.
“The 50 fastest growing UK technology companies, as ranked by Deloitte, generated £808mn in total annual revenues in the year 2022/23 and employed almost 15,000 people. The Deloitte UK Technology Fast 50 recorded an average four-year growth rate of 5,473 per cent.”
Intruder was founded in 2015 to solve the information overload crisis in vulnerability management. It’s mission from day one has been to help divide the needles from the haystack, focusing on what matters, while ignoring the rest. Effective cyber security is about getting the basics right. Intruder helps do that, saving time on the easy stuff, so users can focus on the rest. It has been awarded multiple accolades, was selected for GCHQ's Cyber Accelerator, and is now proud to have over 2,500 happy customers all over the world.
About the Deloitte UK Technology Fast 50
The Deloitte UK Technology Fast 50 is one of the UK’s foremost technology award programmes. Now in its 26 th year, it is a ranking of the country’s 50 fastest-growing technology companies, based on revenue growth over the last four years. The UK Fast 50 awards are all about growth driven by leading intellectual property and are a celebration of innovation and entrepreneurship. Previous winners have come from across the UK, are both large and small, and included some of the most dynamic players in all areas of technology, from IoT to BioTech, digital media technology to life sciences, FinTech to software and clean energy to telecommunications.
For more information visit www.fast50.co.uk
The full list of this year’s winners and winner breakdown by region and sector is available at www.fast50.co.uk
In this press release references to “Deloitte” are references to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (“DTTL”) a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of DTTL and its member firms. Deloitte LLP is a subsidiary of Deloitte NSE LLP, which is a member firm of DTTL, and is among the UK's leading professional services firms. The information contained in this press release is correct at the time of going to press.
For more information, please visit www.deloitte.co.uk.
Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited A
Red Lorry Yellow Lorry for Intruder
- Raw CVE Coverage
- Risk Rating Coverage
- Remote Check Types
- Check Publication Lead Time
- Local/Authenticated vs Remote Check Prioritisation
- Software Vendor & Package Coverage
- Headline Vulnerabilities of 2021 Coverage
- Analysis Decisions
Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers, threat actors have to actively research type of vulnerability, location in vulnerable software and build an associated exploit.
Tenable release checks for 47.43% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 32.96%.
Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers and threat actors now have access to some of the information they were previously having to hunt themselves, speeding up potential exploit creation.
Tenable release checks for 17.12% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 17.69%.
The likelihood that exploitation in the wild is going to be happening is steadily increasing.
Tenable release checks for 10.9% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 20.69%.
We’re starting to lose some of the benefit of rapid, automated vulnerability detection.
Tenable release checks for 9.58% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 12.43%.
Any detection released a month after the details are publicly available is decreasing in value for me.
Tenable release checks for 14.97% of the CVEs they cover over a month after the CVE details have been published, and Greenbone release 16.23%.
With this information in mind, I wanted to check what is the delay for both Tenable and Greenbone to release a detection for their scanners. The following section will focus on vulnerabilities which:
- Have CVSSv2 rating of 10
- Are exploitable over the network
- Require no user interaction
These are the ones where an attacker can point their exploit code at your vulnerable system and gain unauthorised access.
We’ve seen previously that Tenable have remote checks for 643 critical vulnerabilities, and OpenVAS have remote checks for 450 critical vulnerabilities. Tenable release remote checks for critical vulnerabilities within 1 month of the details being made public 58.4% of the time, but Greenbone release their checks within 1 month 76.8% of the time. So, even though OpenVAS has fewer checks for those critical vulnerabilities, you are more likely to get them within 1 month of the details being made public. Let’s break that down further.
In Figure 10 we can see the absolute number of remote checks released on a given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability has been published. What you can immediately see is that both Tenable and OpenVAS release the majority of their checks on or before the CVE details are made public; Tenable have released checks for 247 CVEs, and OpenVAS have released checks for 144 CVEs. Then since 2010 Tenable have remote released checks for 147 critical CVEs and OpenVAS 79 critical CVEs on the same day as the vulnerability details were published. The number of vulnerabilities then drops off across the first week and drops further after 1 week, as we would hope for in an efficient time-to-release scenario.
While raw numbers are good, Tenable have a larger number of checks available so it could be unfair to go on raw numbers alone. It’s potentially more important to understand the likelihood that OpenVAS or Tenable will release a check of a vulnerability on any given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability is released. In Figure 11 we can see that Tenable release 61% their checks on or before the date that a CVE is published, and OpenVAS release a shade under 50% of their checks on or before the day that a CVE is published.
So, since 2010 Tenable has more frequently released their checks before or on the same day as the CVE details have been published for critical vulnerabilities. While Tenable is leading at this point, Greenbone’s community feed still gets a considerable percentage of their checks out on or before day 0.
I thought I’d go another step further and try and see if I could identify any trend in each organisations release delay, are they getting better year-on-year or are their releases getting later? In Figure 12 I’ve taken the mean delay for critical vulnerabilities per year and plotted them. The mean as a metric is particularly influenced by outliers in a data set, so I expected some wackiness and limited the mean to only checks released 180 days prior to a CVE being published and 31 days after a CVE being published. These seem to me like reasonable limits, as anything greater than 6 months prior to CVE details being released is potentially a quirk of the check details and anything after a 1-month delay is less important for us.
What can we take away from Figure 12?
- We can see that between 2011 and 2014 Greenbone’s release delay was better than that of Tenable, by between 5 and 10 days.
- In 2015 things reverse and for 3 years Tenable is considerably ahead of Greenbone by a matter of weeks.
- But, then in 2019 things get much closer and Greenbone seem to be releasing on average about a day earlier than Tenable.
- For both the trendline over an 11-year period is very close, with Tenable marginally beating Greenbone.
- We have yet to have any data for 2021 for OpenVAS checks for critical show-stopper CVEs.
With the larger number of checks, and still being able to release a greater percentage of their remote checks for critical vulnerabilities Tenable could win this category. However, the delay time from 2019 and 2020 going to OpenVAS, and the trend lines being so close, I am going to declare this one a tie. It’s a tie.
The takeaway from this is that both vendors are getting their checks out the majority of the time either before the CVE details are published or on the day the details are published. This is overwhelmingly positive for both scanning solutions. Over time both also appear to be releasing remote checks for critical vulnerabilities more quickly.